OBG Management

For more than 45 years, gynecologists have used hysteroscopy to diagnose endometrial carcinoma and to associate morphologic descriptive terms with visual findings.¹ Today, considerably more clinical evidence supports visual pattern recognition to assess the risk for and presence of endometrial carcinoma, improving observer-dependent biopsy of the most suspect lesions (VIDEO 1).

In this article, I discuss the clinical evolution of hysteroscopic pattern recognition of endometrial disease and review the visual findings that correlate with the likelihood of endometrial carcinoma. In addition, I have provided 9 short videos that show hysteroscopic views of various endometrial pathologies in the online version of this article at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn.

Video 1. Endometrial carcinoma and visually directed biopsy

Vidyard Video

The negative hysteroscopic view defined

In 1989, Dr. Frank Loffer confirmed the diagnostic superiority of visually directed biopsy. He demonstrated the advantages of using hysteroscopy and directed biopsy in the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) to obtain a more accurate diagnosis compared with dilation and curettage (D&C) alone (sensitivity, 98% vs 65%, respectively).²

Also derived from this work is the clinical application of the “negative hysteroscopic view” (NHV). Loffer used the following criteria to define the NHV: good visualization of the entire uterine cavity, no structural abnormalities of the cavity, and a uniformly thin, homogeneous-appearing endometrium without variations in thickness (TABLE 1). The last criterion can be expected to occur only in the early proliferative phase or in postmenopausal women.

Use of hysteroscopy therefore can predict accurately the absence of intrauterine and endometrial pathology when visual findings are negative and tissue sampling is not warranted (FIGURE 1, VIDEO 2).

Video 2. Negative hysteroscopic view 

Vidyard Video

 

Efforts in hysteroscopic classification of endometrial carcinoma

Lesion morphologic characteristics. Sugimoto was among the first to describe the hysteroscopic identification of visual morphologic features that are most likely to be associated with endometrial carcinoma.¹ Patients with AUB were evaluated with hysteroscopy as first-line management to describe lesion morphology and confirm biopsy with histopathology. Sugimoto classified endometrial carcinoma as circumscribed or exophytic with distinct forms, such as polypoid, nodular, papillary, and ulcerated (FIGURE 2). Diffuse or endophytic carcinoma is defined by an ulcerated type of lesion that indicates necrosis; this is most likely to represent an undifferentiated tumor. Sugimoto also described abnormal vascularity that often is associated with carcinoma.¹

Endometrial features. Valli and Zupi created a nomenclature and classification for hysteroscopic endometrial lesions by prospectively grading 4 features: thickness, surface, vascularization, and color.³ Features were scored based on the degree of abnormality and could be considered to be of low or high risk for the presence of carcinoma. High-risk hysteroscopic features included endometrial thickness greater than 10 mm, polymorphous surface, irregular vascularization, and white-grayish color. The sensitivity for accurately diagnosing endometrial lesions was 86.9% for mild lesions and 96% for severe lesions.³ Also, these investigators confirmed the clinical value of the NHV and associated overall risk of precancer or cancer of the endometrium.

Continue to: Amount of endometrial involvement...

 

 

Amount of endometrial involvement. A few years later, Garuti and colleagues retrospectively related the hysteroscopic tumor features of known endometrial adenocarcinoma to stage, grade, and overall survival.⁴ In this system, they focused on classification of tumor morphology as nodular (bulging), polypoid (thin pedicles), or papillary (numerous dendritic projections), as well as whether the amount of abnormal tissue present was less than or more than half of the endometrium and if the lesion involved the cervix.

Several important findings associated with this system may improve visual diagnosis. First, hysteroscopic evaluation had a 100% negative predictive value for the cervical spread of disease (FIGURE 3, VIDEO 3). Second, the hysteroscopic morphologic tumor type did not relate to surgical stage or pathologic grade. Third, when less than half of the endometrium was involved, stage I disease was found (97%, 33 of 34). Last, when more than half of the endometrium was involved, advanced disease beyond stage I was found (9 of 26, 6 of whom had poorly differentiated disease).⁴

Video 3. Cervical spread of adenocarcinoma and visually directed biopsy

Vidyard Video

Structured pattern analysis. Recently, Dueholm and co-investigators published a prospective evaluation of women with postmenopausal bleeding and an endometrial thickness of 5 mm or greater.⁵ They used a structured system of visual pattern analysis during hysteroscopy that they termed the hysteroscopic cancer (HYCA) scoring system. The HYCA scoring system is based on surface outline (uneven, polypoid, and papillary projections), necrosis (cotton candy endometrium [FIGURE 4], whitish-grayish areas without vessels on the surface), and vessel pattern (tortuous S-shaped, loops, irregular caliber, irregular branching, and irregular distribution [FIGURE 5]). Structured pattern analysis predicted cancer with higher accuracy than subjective evaluation.⁵

Morphologic variables as indicators. In 2016, Ianieri and colleagues published a retrospective study on a risk scoring system for diagnosing endometrial hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma via hysteroscopy.⁶ They created a statistical risk model for development of the scoring system. A number of morphologic variables were prognostic indicators of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and adenocarcinoma. These included widespread and irregular endometrial thickness, presence of multiple polyps with irregular aspects, dilated glandular orifices, irregular endometrial color (grey, white, or hyperemic), atypical vessels, crumbling of the endometrial neoplasms, and growth of cerebroid and arborescent aspects (VIDEO 4).

Video 4. Endometrial adenocarcinoma 

 

 

Vidyard Video

The scoring system for endometrial adenocarcinoma correctly classified 42 of 44 cancers (sensitivity, 95.4%; specificity, 98.2%), and AEH had a sensitivity of 63.3% and a specificity of 90.4%.⁶ These investigators also showed a high negative predictive value of 99.5% for endometrial adenocarcinoma associated with a negative view at hysteroscopy. Similar to the Dueholm data, Ianieri and colleagues’ morphologic pattern analysis predicted cancer with high accuracy.

Glomerular pattern association. Su and colleagues also showed that pattern recognition could aid in the accurate hysteroscopic diagnosis of endometrial adenocarcinoma.⁷ They used the hysteroscopic presence of a glomerular pattern to predict the association with endometrial adenocarcinoma. A glomerular pattern was described as polypoid endometrium with a papillary-like feature, containing an abnormal neovascularization feature with “intertwined neovascular vessels covered by a thin layer of endometrial tissue” (FIGURE 6). The presence of a glomerular pattern indicated grade 2 or grade 3 disease in 25 of 26 women (96%; sensitivity, 84.6%, specificity, 81.8%)⁷ (see video 4).

TABLE 2 summarizes significant morphologic findings relating to the presences of endometrial carcinoma.

Continue to: Atypical endometrial hyperplasia: A difficult diagnosis...

 

 

Atypical endometrial hyperplasia: A difficult diagnosis

The most common type of endometrial cancer is endometrioid adenocarcinoma (type 1 endometrial carcinoma), and it accounts for approximately 75% to 80% of endometrial cancer diagnoses.⁸ Risk factors include prolonged unopposed estrogen exposure, obesity, diabetes, and age. Type 1 endometrial carcinoma follows a progressive continuum of histopathologic change: from endometrial hyperplasia without atypia to endometrial hyperplasia with atypia (AEH) to well-differentiated endometrial cancer. Therefore, it is possible for endometrial carcinoma to be present simultaneously with AEH. The reported prevalence of concurrent endometrial carcinoma among patients with AEH on biopsy is between 17% and 52%.⁸ Thus, the clinical consideration is for hysterectomy, especially in the postmenopausal patient with a diagnosis of AEH.

Hysteroscopic diagnosis of AEH, however, is more difficult than identification of endometrial carcinoma because a range of morphologic characteristics exist that resemble normal endometrium as well as more progressive disease (VIDEO 5). De Franciscis and colleagues based a hysteroscopic diagnosis of hyperplasia on one or more of the following findings: focal or diffuse, papillary or polypoid, endometrial thickening; abnormal vascular patterns; evidence of glandular cysts; and abnormal architecture features of the glandular outlets (thickening, irregular gland density, or dilatation)⁹ (VIDEO 6).

Video 5. Endometrial polyp and atypical hyperplasia 

Vidyard Video

Additional studies, including that from Ianieri and colleagues, also have determined that AEH is difficult to discern visually from normal endometrium and other endometrial pathologies.⁶ In another investigation, Lasmar and coauthors reported a retrospective analysis of 4,054 hysteroscopic procedures with directed biopsies evaluating for concordance between the hysteroscopic view and histopathology.¹⁰ Agreement was 56.3% for AEH versus 94% for endometrial carcinoma. Among those with a histologic diagnosis of AEH, in 35.4% benign disease was suspected; in 2.1%, endometrial carcinoma was suspected; and in 6%, normal findings were presumed.¹⁰

Video 6. Nodular, polypoid atypical hyperplasia 

Vidyard Video

Because of the similarities in morphologic features between AEH and endometrial carcinoma, tissue biopsy under direct visualization is warranted to assure sampling of the most significantly abnormal tissue and to confirm visual interpretation of findings.

Techniques for hysteroscopic-directed biopsy

Using a visual assessment of endometrial abnormalities allows the surgeon to examine the entire uterine cavity and to biopsy the most suspicious and concerning lesions. The directed biopsy technique can involve a simple grasping maneuver: With the jaws of a small grasper open, push slightly forward to accumulate tissue within the jaw, close the jaw, and remove the tissue carefully through the cervix (VIDEO 7). The size of the sample may be limited, and multiple samples may be needed, depending on the quantity of the tissue retrieved.

Video 7. Visually directed endometrial biopsy

Vidyard Video

Another technique involves first creating a plane of tissue to be removed with scissors and subsequently grasping and removing the tissue (see video 1 and video 3). This particular technique will yield more tissue with one pass of the hysteroscope into the cavity. Careful removal of tissue through the cervix is facilitated by withdrawing the sample in the grasper and the hysteroscope together at the same time, without pulling the sample through the operative channel of the hysteroscope. Also, by turning off the inflow port, the stream of saline does not wash the sample off the grasper at hysteroscope removal from the cervix.

Blind biopsy. If visual inspection reveals a diffuse process within the uterine cavity such that no normal endometrium is noted and the abnormality is of equal degree throughout the endometrial surface, a decision can be made to replace directed biopsy with a blind biopsy. In this scenario, the blind biopsy is certain to sample the representative disease process and not potentially miss significant lesions (see video 4 and video 6). Otherwise, the hysteroscope-directed biopsy would be preferable.

Continue to: Potential for intraperitoneal dissemination of endometrial cancer...

 

 

Potential for intraperitoneal dissemination of endometrial cancer

There is some concern about intraperitoneal dissemination of endometrial carcinoma at the time of hysteroscopy and effect on disease prognosis. Chang and colleagues conducted a large meta-analysis and found that hysteroscopy performed in the presence of type 1 endometrial carcinoma statistically significantly increased the likelihood of positive intraperitoneal cytology.¹¹ In the included studies that reported survival rates (6 of 19), positive cytology did not alter the clinical outcome. The investigators recommended that hysteroscopy not be avoided for this reason, as it helps in the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma, especially in the early stages of disease.¹¹

In a recent retrospective analysis, Namazov and colleagues included only stage I endometrial carcinoma (to exclude the adverse effect of advanced stage on survival) and evaluated the assumed isolated effect of hysteroscopy on survival.¹² They compared women in whom stage I endometrial carcinoma was diagnosed: 355 by hysteroscopy and 969 by a nonhysteroscopy method (D&C or office endometrial biopsy). Tumors were classified and grouped as low grade (endometrioid grade 1-2 and villoglandular) and high grade, consisting of endometrioid grade 3 and type 2 endometrial carcinoma (serous carcinoma, clear cell carcinoma, and carcinosarcoma) (VIDEOS 8 and 9). Positive intraperitoneal cytology at the time of surgery was 2.3% and 2.1% (P = .832), with an average interval from diagnosis to surgery of 34.6 days (range, 7–43 days).

Video 8. Carcinosarcoma 

Vidyard Video

The authors proposed several explanations for the low rate of intraperitoneal cytology with hysteroscopy. One possibility is having lower mean intrauterine pressure below 100 mm Hg for saline uterine distension, although this was not standardized for all surgeons in the study but rather was a custom of the institution. In addition, the length of time between hysteroscopy and surgery may allow the immune-reactive peritoneum to respond to the cellular insult, thus decreasing the biologic burden at the time of surgery. The median follow-up was 52 months (range, 12–120 months), and there were no differences between the hysteroscopy and the nonhysteroscopy groups in the 5-year recurrence-free survival (90.2% vs 88.2%; P = .53), disease-specific survival (93.4% vs 91.7%; P = .5), and overall survival (86.2% vs 80.6%; P = .22). The authors concluded that hysteroscopy does not compromise the survival of patients with early-stage endometrial cancer.¹²

Video 9. Carcinosarcoma 

Vidyard Video

Retrospective data from Chen and colleagues regarding type 2 endometrial carcinoma indicated a statistically significant increase in positive intraperitoneal cytology for carcinomas evaluated by hysteroscopy versus D&C (30% vs 12%; P = .008).¹³ Among the patients who died, there was no difference in disease-specific survival (53 months for hysteroscopy and 63.5 months for D&C; P = .34), and there was no difference in overall recurrence rates.¹³ Compared with type 1 endometrial carcinoma, type 2 endometrial carcinoma behaves more aggressively, with a higher incidence of extrauterine disease and an increased propensity for recurrence and poor outcome even in the early stages of the disease. This makes it difficult to determine the role of hysteroscopy in the prognosis of these carcinomas, especially in this study where most patients were diagnosed at a later stage.

Key takeaways

Hysteroscopy and directed biopsy are highly effective for visual and histopathologic diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma, and they are recommended in the evaluation of AUB, especially in the postmenopausal woman. When the hysteroscopic view is negative, there is a high correlation with the absence of uterine cavity and endometrial pathology. Hysteroscopic diagnostic accuracy is improved with structured use of visual grading scales, well-defined descriptors of endometrial pathology, and hysteroscopist experience.

Low operating intrauterine pressure may decrease the intraperitoneal spread of carcinoma cells during hysteroscopy, and current evidence suggests that there is no change in type 1 endometrial carcinoma prognosis and overall outcomes. Type 2 endometrial carcinoma is more aggressive and is associated with poor outcomes even in early stages, and the effect on disease progression by intraperitoneal spread of carcinoma cells at hysteroscopy is not yet known. Hysteroscopic evaluation of the uterine cavity and directed biopsy is easily and safely performed in the office and adds significantly to the evaluation and management of endometrial carcinoma.

Don’t miss the videos that accompany this article

---

Access them in the article online at mdedge.com/obgyn

Video 1. Endometrial carcinoma and visually directed biopsy

Nodular endometrioid adenocarcinoma grade 1 (type 1 endometrial carcinoma), benign endometrial polyps, and endometrial atrophy in a postmenopausal woman with bleeding. This video demonstrates visually directed biopsy to assure sampling of the most significant lesion.

Video 2. Negative hysteroscopic view

Digital flexible diagnostic hysteroscopy showing a negative hysteroscopic view in a premenopausal woman.

Video 3. Cervical spread of adenocarcinoma and visually directed biopsy 

Diffuse endometrioid adenocarcinoma spread to the upper cervical canal near the internal cervical os. Hysteroscopic directed biopsy is performed.

Video 4. Endometrial adenocarcinoma

Fiberoptic flexible diagnostic hysteroscopy demonstrating diffuse endometrioid adenocarcinoma grade 3 with multiple morphologic features: polypoid, nodular, papillary, and glomerular with areas of necrosis.

Video 5. Endometrial polyp and atypical hyperplasia

Large benign endometrial polyp in an asymptomatic postmenopausal woman with enlarged endometrial stripe on pelvic ultrasound. The endometrium is atrophic except for a small whitish area on the anterior wall, which is atypical hyperplasia. This video highlights the need for visually directed biopsy to assure sampling of the most significant lesion.

Video 6. Nodular, polypoid atypical hyperplasia

Fiberoptic flexible diagnostic hysteroscopy showing diffuse nodular and polypoid atypical hyperplasia with abnormal glandular openings in a postmenopausal woman. Hysterectomy was performed secondary to the significant likelihood of concomitant endometrial carcinoma.

Video 7. Visually directed endometrial biopsy

Hysteroscopic-directed biopsy showing the technique of grasping and removing tissue of a benign adenomyosis cyst and proliferative endometrium.

Video 8. Carcinosarcoma

Carcinosarcoma (type 2 endometrial carcinoma) presents as a large intracavitary mass with soft, polypoid-like tissue in a symptomatic postmenopausal woman with bleeding.

Video 9. Carcinosarcoma

Carcinosarcoma (type 2 endometrial carcinoma) presents as a dense mass in a symptomatic postmenopausal woman with bleeding. This video shows the mass is nodular. These cancers typically grow into a spherical mass within the cavity

 

For more than 45 years, gynecologists have used hysteroscopy to diagnose endometrial carcinoma and to associate morphologic descriptive terms with visual findings.¹ Today, considerably more clinical evidence supports visual pattern recognition to assess the risk for and presence of endometrial carcinoma, improving observer-dependent biopsy of the most suspect lesions (VIDEO 1).

In this article, I discuss the clinical evolution of hysteroscopic pattern recognition of endometrial disease and review the visual findings that correlate with the likelihood of endometrial carcinoma. In addition, I have provided 9 short videos that show hysteroscopic views of various endometrial pathologies in the online version of this article at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn.

Video 1. Endometrial carcinoma and visually directed biopsy

Vidyard Video

The negative hysteroscopic view defined

In 1989, Dr. Frank Loffer confirmed the diagnostic superiority of visually directed biopsy. He demonstrated the advantages of using hysteroscopy and directed biopsy in the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) to obtain a more accurate diagnosis compared with dilation and curettage (D&C) alone (sensitivity, 98% vs 65%, respectively).²

Also derived from this work is the clinical application of the “negative hysteroscopic view” (NHV). Loffer used the following criteria to define the NHV: good visualization of the entire uterine cavity, no structural abnormalities of the cavity, and a uniformly thin, homogeneous-appearing endometrium without variations in thickness (TABLE 1). The last criterion can be expected to occur only in the early proliferative phase or in postmenopausal women.

Use of hysteroscopy therefore can predict accurately the absence of intrauterine and endometrial pathology when visual findings are negative and tissue sampling is not warranted (FIGURE 1, VIDEO 2).

Video 2. Negative hysteroscopic view 

Vidyard Video

 

Efforts in hysteroscopic classification of endometrial carcinoma

Lesion morphologic characteristics. Sugimoto was among the first to describe the hysteroscopic identification of visual morphologic features that are most likely to be associated with endometrial carcinoma.¹ Patients with AUB were evaluated with hysteroscopy as first-line management to describe lesion morphology and confirm biopsy with histopathology. Sugimoto classified endometrial carcinoma as circumscribed or exophytic with distinct forms, such as polypoid, nodular, papillary, and ulcerated (FIGURE 2). Diffuse or endophytic carcinoma is defined by an ulcerated type of lesion that indicates necrosis; this is most likely to represent an undifferentiated tumor. Sugimoto also described abnormal vascularity that often is associated with carcinoma.¹

Endometrial features. Valli and Zupi created a nomenclature and classification for hysteroscopic endometrial lesions by prospectively grading 4 features: thickness, surface, vascularization, and color.³ Features were scored based on the degree of abnormality and could be considered to be of low or high risk for the presence of carcinoma. High-risk hysteroscopic features included endometrial thickness greater than 10 mm, polymorphous surface, irregular vascularization, and white-grayish color. The sensitivity for accurately diagnosing endometrial lesions was 86.9% for mild lesions and 96% for severe lesions.³ Also, these investigators confirmed the clinical value of the NHV and associated overall risk of precancer or cancer of the endometrium.

Continue to: Amount of endometrial involvement...

 

 

Amount of endometrial involvement. A few years later, Garuti and colleagues retrospectively related the hysteroscopic tumor features of known endometrial adenocarcinoma to stage, grade, and overall survival.⁴ In this system, they focused on classification of tumor morphology as nodular (bulging), polypoid (thin pedicles), or papillary (numerous dendritic projections), as well as whether the amount of abnormal tissue present was less than or more than half of the endometrium and if the lesion involved the cervix.

Several important findings associated with this system may improve visual diagnosis. First, hysteroscopic evaluation had a 100% negative predictive value for the cervical spread of disease (FIGURE 3, VIDEO 3). Second, the hysteroscopic morphologic tumor type did not relate to surgical stage or pathologic grade. Third, when less than half of the endometrium was involved, stage I disease was found (97%, 33 of 34). Last, when more than half of the endometrium was involved, advanced disease beyond stage I was found (9 of 26, 6 of whom had poorly differentiated disease).⁴

Video 3. Cervical spread of adenocarcinoma and visually directed biopsy

Vidyard Video

Structured pattern analysis. Recently, Dueholm and co-investigators published a prospective evaluation of women with postmenopausal bleeding and an endometrial thickness of 5 mm or greater.⁵ They used a structured system of visual pattern analysis during hysteroscopy that they termed the hysteroscopic cancer (HYCA) scoring system. The HYCA scoring system is based on surface outline (uneven, polypoid, and papillary projections), necrosis (cotton candy endometrium [FIGURE 4], whitish-grayish areas without vessels on the surface), and vessel pattern (tortuous S-shaped, loops, irregular caliber, irregular branching, and irregular distribution [FIGURE 5]). Structured pattern analysis predicted cancer with higher accuracy than subjective evaluation.⁵

Morphologic variables as indicators. In 2016, Ianieri and colleagues published a retrospective study on a risk scoring system for diagnosing endometrial hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma via hysteroscopy.⁶ They created a statistical risk model for development of the scoring system. A number of morphologic variables were prognostic indicators of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and adenocarcinoma. These included widespread and irregular endometrial thickness, presence of multiple polyps with irregular aspects, dilated glandular orifices, irregular endometrial color (grey, white, or hyperemic), atypical vessels, crumbling of the endometrial neoplasms, and growth of cerebroid and arborescent aspects (VIDEO 4).

Video 4. Endometrial adenocarcinoma 

 

 

Vidyard Video

The scoring system for endometrial adenocarcinoma correctly classified 42 of 44 cancers (sensitivity, 95.4%; specificity, 98.2%), and AEH had a sensitivity of 63.3% and a specificity of 90.4%.⁶ These investigators also showed a high negative predictive value of 99.5% for endometrial adenocarcinoma associated with a negative view at hysteroscopy. Similar to the Dueholm data, Ianieri and colleagues’ morphologic pattern analysis predicted cancer with high accuracy.

Glomerular pattern association. Su and colleagues also showed that pattern recognition could aid in the accurate hysteroscopic diagnosis of endometrial adenocarcinoma.⁷ They used the hysteroscopic presence of a glomerular pattern to predict the association with endometrial adenocarcinoma. A glomerular pattern was described as polypoid endometrium with a papillary-like feature, containing an abnormal neovascularization feature with “intertwined neovascular vessels covered by a thin layer of endometrial tissue” (FIGURE 6). The presence of a glomerular pattern indicated grade 2 or grade 3 disease in 25 of 26 women (96%; sensitivity, 84.6%, specificity, 81.8%)⁷ (see video 4).

TABLE 2 summarizes significant morphologic findings relating to the presences of endometrial carcinoma.

Continue to: Atypical endometrial hyperplasia: A difficult diagnosis...

 

 

Atypical endometrial hyperplasia: A difficult diagnosis

The most common type of endometrial cancer is endometrioid adenocarcinoma (type 1 endometrial carcinoma), and it accounts for approximately 75% to 80% of endometrial cancer diagnoses.⁸ Risk factors include prolonged unopposed estrogen exposure, obesity, diabetes, and age. Type 1 endometrial carcinoma follows a progressive continuum of histopathologic change: from endometrial hyperplasia without atypia to endometrial hyperplasia with atypia (AEH) to well-differentiated endometrial cancer. Therefore, it is possible for endometrial carcinoma to be present simultaneously with AEH. The reported prevalence of concurrent endometrial carcinoma among patients with AEH on biopsy is between 17% and 52%.⁸ Thus, the clinical consideration is for hysterectomy, especially in the postmenopausal patient with a diagnosis of AEH.

Hysteroscopic diagnosis of AEH, however, is more difficult than identification of endometrial carcinoma because a range of morphologic characteristics exist that resemble normal endometrium as well as more progressive disease (VIDEO 5). De Franciscis and colleagues based a hysteroscopic diagnosis of hyperplasia on one or more of the following findings: focal or diffuse, papillary or polypoid, endometrial thickening; abnormal vascular patterns; evidence of glandular cysts; and abnormal architecture features of the glandular outlets (thickening, irregular gland density, or dilatation)⁹ (VIDEO 6).

Video 5. Endometrial polyp and atypical hyperplasia 

Vidyard Video

Additional studies, including that from Ianieri and colleagues, also have determined that AEH is difficult to discern visually from normal endometrium and other endometrial pathologies.⁶ In another investigation, Lasmar and coauthors reported a retrospective analysis of 4,054 hysteroscopic procedures with directed biopsies evaluating for concordance between the hysteroscopic view and histopathology.¹⁰ Agreement was 56.3% for AEH versus 94% for endometrial carcinoma. Among those with a histologic diagnosis of AEH, in 35.4% benign disease was suspected; in 2.1%, endometrial carcinoma was suspected; and in 6%, normal findings were presumed.¹⁰

Video 6. Nodular, polypoid atypical hyperplasia 

Vidyard Video

Because of the similarities in morphologic features between AEH and endometrial carcinoma, tissue biopsy under direct visualization is warranted to assure sampling of the most significantly abnormal tissue and to confirm visual interpretation of findings.

Techniques for hysteroscopic-directed biopsy

Using a visual assessment of endometrial abnormalities allows the surgeon to examine the entire uterine cavity and to biopsy the most suspicious and concerning lesions. The directed biopsy technique can involve a simple grasping maneuver: With the jaws of a small grasper open, push slightly forward to accumulate tissue within the jaw, close the jaw, and remove the tissue carefully through the cervix (VIDEO 7). The size of the sample may be limited, and multiple samples may be needed, depending on the quantity of the tissue retrieved.

Video 7. Visually directed endometrial biopsy

Vidyard Video

Another technique involves first creating a plane of tissue to be removed with scissors and subsequently grasping and removing the tissue (see video 1 and video 3). This particular technique will yield more tissue with one pass of the hysteroscope into the cavity. Careful removal of tissue through the cervix is facilitated by withdrawing the sample in the grasper and the hysteroscope together at the same time, without pulling the sample through the operative channel of the hysteroscope. Also, by turning off the inflow port, the stream of saline does not wash the sample off the grasper at hysteroscope removal from the cervix.

Blind biopsy. If visual inspection reveals a diffuse process within the uterine cavity such that no normal endometrium is noted and the abnormality is of equal degree throughout the endometrial surface, a decision can be made to replace directed biopsy with a blind biopsy. In this scenario, the blind biopsy is certain to sample the representative disease process and not potentially miss significant lesions (see video 4 and video 6). Otherwise, the hysteroscope-directed biopsy would be preferable.

Continue to: Potential for intraperitoneal dissemination of endometrial cancer...

 

 

Potential for intraperitoneal dissemination of endometrial cancer

There is some concern about intraperitoneal dissemination of endometrial carcinoma at the time of hysteroscopy and effect on disease prognosis. Chang and colleagues conducted a large meta-analysis and found that hysteroscopy performed in the presence of type 1 endometrial carcinoma statistically significantly increased the likelihood of positive intraperitoneal cytology.¹¹ In the included studies that reported survival rates (6 of 19), positive cytology did not alter the clinical outcome. The investigators recommended that hysteroscopy not be avoided for this reason, as it helps in the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma, especially in the early stages of disease.¹¹

In a recent retrospective analysis, Namazov and colleagues included only stage I endometrial carcinoma (to exclude the adverse effect of advanced stage on survival) and evaluated the assumed isolated effect of hysteroscopy on survival.¹² They compared women in whom stage I endometrial carcinoma was diagnosed: 355 by hysteroscopy and 969 by a nonhysteroscopy method (D&C or office endometrial biopsy). Tumors were classified and grouped as low grade (endometrioid grade 1-2 and villoglandular) and high grade, consisting of endometrioid grade 3 and type 2 endometrial carcinoma (serous carcinoma, clear cell carcinoma, and carcinosarcoma) (VIDEOS 8 and 9). Positive intraperitoneal cytology at the time of surgery was 2.3% and 2.1% (P = .832), with an average interval from diagnosis to surgery of 34.6 days (range, 7–43 days).

Video 8. Carcinosarcoma 

Vidyard Video

The authors proposed several explanations for the low rate of intraperitoneal cytology with hysteroscopy. One possibility is having lower mean intrauterine pressure below 100 mm Hg for saline uterine distension, although this was not standardized for all surgeons in the study but rather was a custom of the institution. In addition, the length of time between hysteroscopy and surgery may allow the immune-reactive peritoneum to respond to the cellular insult, thus decreasing the biologic burden at the time of surgery. The median follow-up was 52 months (range, 12–120 months), and there were no differences between the hysteroscopy and the nonhysteroscopy groups in the 5-year recurrence-free survival (90.2% vs 88.2%; P = .53), disease-specific survival (93.4% vs 91.7%; P = .5), and overall survival (86.2% vs 80.6%; P = .22). The authors concluded that hysteroscopy does not compromise the survival of patients with early-stage endometrial cancer.¹²

Video 9. Carcinosarcoma 

Vidyard Video

Retrospective data from Chen and colleagues regarding type 2 endometrial carcinoma indicated a statistically significant increase in positive intraperitoneal cytology for carcinomas evaluated by hysteroscopy versus D&C (30% vs 12%; P = .008).¹³ Among the patients who died, there was no difference in disease-specific survival (53 months for hysteroscopy and 63.5 months for D&C; P = .34), and there was no difference in overall recurrence rates.¹³ Compared with type 1 endometrial carcinoma, type 2 endometrial carcinoma behaves more aggressively, with a higher incidence of extrauterine disease and an increased propensity for recurrence and poor outcome even in the early stages of the disease. This makes it difficult to determine the role of hysteroscopy in the prognosis of these carcinomas, especially in this study where most patients were diagnosed at a later stage.

Key takeaways

Hysteroscopy and directed biopsy are highly effective for visual and histopathologic diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma, and they are recommended in the evaluation of AUB, especially in the postmenopausal woman. When the hysteroscopic view is negative, there is a high correlation with the absence of uterine cavity and endometrial pathology. Hysteroscopic diagnostic accuracy is improved with structured use of visual grading scales, well-defined descriptors of endometrial pathology, and hysteroscopist experience.

Low operating intrauterine pressure may decrease the intraperitoneal spread of carcinoma cells during hysteroscopy, and current evidence suggests that there is no change in type 1 endometrial carcinoma prognosis and overall outcomes. Type 2 endometrial carcinoma is more aggressive and is associated with poor outcomes even in early stages, and the effect on disease progression by intraperitoneal spread of carcinoma cells at hysteroscopy is not yet known. Hysteroscopic evaluation of the uterine cavity and directed biopsy is easily and safely performed in the office and adds significantly to the evaluation and management of endometrial carcinoma.

Don’t miss the videos that accompany this article

---

Access them in the article online at mdedge.com/obgyn

Video 1. Endometrial carcinoma and visually directed biopsy

Nodular endometrioid adenocarcinoma grade 1 (type 1 endometrial carcinoma), benign endometrial polyps, and endometrial atrophy in a postmenopausal woman with bleeding. This video demonstrates visually directed biopsy to assure sampling of the most significant lesion.

Video 2. Negative hysteroscopic view

Digital flexible diagnostic hysteroscopy showing a negative hysteroscopic view in a premenopausal woman.

Video 3. Cervical spread of adenocarcinoma and visually directed biopsy 

Diffuse endometrioid adenocarcinoma spread to the upper cervical canal near the internal cervical os. Hysteroscopic directed biopsy is performed.

Video 4. Endometrial adenocarcinoma

Fiberoptic flexible diagnostic hysteroscopy demonstrating diffuse endometrioid adenocarcinoma grade 3 with multiple morphologic features: polypoid, nodular, papillary, and glomerular with areas of necrosis.

Video 5. Endometrial polyp and atypical hyperplasia

Large benign endometrial polyp in an asymptomatic postmenopausal woman with enlarged endometrial stripe on pelvic ultrasound. The endometrium is atrophic except for a small whitish area on the anterior wall, which is atypical hyperplasia. This video highlights the need for visually directed biopsy to assure sampling of the most significant lesion.

Video 6. Nodular, polypoid atypical hyperplasia

Fiberoptic flexible diagnostic hysteroscopy showing diffuse nodular and polypoid atypical hyperplasia with abnormal glandular openings in a postmenopausal woman. Hysterectomy was performed secondary to the significant likelihood of concomitant endometrial carcinoma.

Video 7. Visually directed endometrial biopsy

Hysteroscopic-directed biopsy showing the technique of grasping and removing tissue of a benign adenomyosis cyst and proliferative endometrium.

Video 8. Carcinosarcoma

Carcinosarcoma (type 2 endometrial carcinoma) presents as a large intracavitary mass with soft, polypoid-like tissue in a symptomatic postmenopausal woman with bleeding.

Video 9. Carcinosarcoma

Carcinosarcoma (type 2 endometrial carcinoma) presents as a dense mass in a symptomatic postmenopausal woman with bleeding. This video shows the mass is nodular. These cancers typically grow into a spherical mass within the cavity

 

For more than 45 years, gynecologists have used hysteroscopy to diagnose endometrial carcinoma and to associate morphologic descriptive terms with visual findings.¹ Today, considerably more clinical evidence supports visual pattern recognition to assess the risk for and presence of endometrial carcinoma, improving observer-dependent biopsy of the most suspect lesions (VIDEO 1).

In this article, I discuss the clinical evolution of hysteroscopic pattern recognition of endometrial disease and review the visual findings that correlate with the likelihood of endometrial carcinoma. In addition, I have provided 9 short videos that show hysteroscopic views of various endometrial pathologies in the online version of this article at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn.

Video 1. Endometrial carcinoma and visually directed biopsy

Vidyard Video

The negative hysteroscopic view defined

In 1989, Dr. Frank Loffer confirmed the diagnostic superiority of visually directed biopsy. He demonstrated the advantages of using hysteroscopy and directed biopsy in the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) to obtain a more accurate diagnosis compared with dilation and curettage (D&C) alone (sensitivity, 98% vs 65%, respectively).²

Also derived from this work is the clinical application of the “negative hysteroscopic view” (NHV). Loffer used the following criteria to define the NHV: good visualization of the entire uterine cavity, no structural abnormalities of the cavity, and a uniformly thin, homogeneous-appearing endometrium without variations in thickness (TABLE 1). The last criterion can be expected to occur only in the early proliferative phase or in postmenopausal women.

Use of hysteroscopy therefore can predict accurately the absence of intrauterine and endometrial pathology when visual findings are negative and tissue sampling is not warranted (FIGURE 1, VIDEO 2).

Video 2. Negative hysteroscopic view 

Vidyard Video

 

Efforts in hysteroscopic classification of endometrial carcinoma

Lesion morphologic characteristics. Sugimoto was among the first to describe the hysteroscopic identification of visual morphologic features that are most likely to be associated with endometrial carcinoma.¹ Patients with AUB were evaluated with hysteroscopy as first-line management to describe lesion morphology and confirm biopsy with histopathology. Sugimoto classified endometrial carcinoma as circumscribed or exophytic with distinct forms, such as polypoid, nodular, papillary, and ulcerated (FIGURE 2). Diffuse or endophytic carcinoma is defined by an ulcerated type of lesion that indicates necrosis; this is most likely to represent an undifferentiated tumor. Sugimoto also described abnormal vascularity that often is associated with carcinoma.¹

Endometrial features. Valli and Zupi created a nomenclature and classification for hysteroscopic endometrial lesions by prospectively grading 4 features: thickness, surface, vascularization, and color.³ Features were scored based on the degree of abnormality and could be considered to be of low or high risk for the presence of carcinoma. High-risk hysteroscopic features included endometrial thickness greater than 10 mm, polymorphous surface, irregular vascularization, and white-grayish color. The sensitivity for accurately diagnosing endometrial lesions was 86.9% for mild lesions and 96% for severe lesions.³ Also, these investigators confirmed the clinical value of the NHV and associated overall risk of precancer or cancer of the endometrium.

Continue to: Amount of endometrial involvement...

 

 

Amount of endometrial involvement. A few years later, Garuti and colleagues retrospectively related the hysteroscopic tumor features of known endometrial adenocarcinoma to stage, grade, and overall survival.⁴ In this system, they focused on classification of tumor morphology as nodular (bulging), polypoid (thin pedicles), or papillary (numerous dendritic projections), as well as whether the amount of abnormal tissue present was less than or more than half of the endometrium and if the lesion involved the cervix.

Several important findings associated with this system may improve visual diagnosis. First, hysteroscopic evaluation had a 100% negative predictive value for the cervical spread of disease (FIGURE 3, VIDEO 3). Second, the hysteroscopic morphologic tumor type did not relate to surgical stage or pathologic grade. Third, when less than half of the endometrium was involved, stage I disease was found (97%, 33 of 34). Last, when more than half of the endometrium was involved, advanced disease beyond stage I was found (9 of 26, 6 of whom had poorly differentiated disease).⁴

Video 3. Cervical spread of adenocarcinoma and visually directed biopsy

Vidyard Video

Structured pattern analysis. Recently, Dueholm and co-investigators published a prospective evaluation of women with postmenopausal bleeding and an endometrial thickness of 5 mm or greater.⁵ They used a structured system of visual pattern analysis during hysteroscopy that they termed the hysteroscopic cancer (HYCA) scoring system. The HYCA scoring system is based on surface outline (uneven, polypoid, and papillary projections), necrosis (cotton candy endometrium [FIGURE 4], whitish-grayish areas without vessels on the surface), and vessel pattern (tortuous S-shaped, loops, irregular caliber, irregular branching, and irregular distribution [FIGURE 5]). Structured pattern analysis predicted cancer with higher accuracy than subjective evaluation.⁵

Morphologic variables as indicators. In 2016, Ianieri and colleagues published a retrospective study on a risk scoring system for diagnosing endometrial hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma via hysteroscopy.⁶ They created a statistical risk model for development of the scoring system. A number of morphologic variables were prognostic indicators of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and adenocarcinoma. These included widespread and irregular endometrial thickness, presence of multiple polyps with irregular aspects, dilated glandular orifices, irregular endometrial color (grey, white, or hyperemic), atypical vessels, crumbling of the endometrial neoplasms, and growth of cerebroid and arborescent aspects (VIDEO 4).

Video 4. Endometrial adenocarcinoma 

 

 

Vidyard Video

The scoring system for endometrial adenocarcinoma correctly classified 42 of 44 cancers (sensitivity, 95.4%; specificity, 98.2%), and AEH had a sensitivity of 63.3% and a specificity of 90.4%.⁶ These investigators also showed a high negative predictive value of 99.5% for endometrial adenocarcinoma associated with a negative view at hysteroscopy. Similar to the Dueholm data, Ianieri and colleagues’ morphologic pattern analysis predicted cancer with high accuracy.

Glomerular pattern association. Su and colleagues also showed that pattern recognition could aid in the accurate hysteroscopic diagnosis of endometrial adenocarcinoma.⁷ They used the hysteroscopic presence of a glomerular pattern to predict the association with endometrial adenocarcinoma. A glomerular pattern was described as polypoid endometrium with a papillary-like feature, containing an abnormal neovascularization feature with “intertwined neovascular vessels covered by a thin layer of endometrial tissue” (FIGURE 6). The presence of a glomerular pattern indicated grade 2 or grade 3 disease in 25 of 26 women (96%; sensitivity, 84.6%, specificity, 81.8%)⁷ (see video 4).

TABLE 2 summarizes significant morphologic findings relating to the presences of endometrial carcinoma.

Continue to: Atypical endometrial hyperplasia: A difficult diagnosis...

 

 

Atypical endometrial hyperplasia: A difficult diagnosis

The most common type of endometrial cancer is endometrioid adenocarcinoma (type 1 endometrial carcinoma), and it accounts for approximately 75% to 80% of endometrial cancer diagnoses.⁸ Risk factors include prolonged unopposed estrogen exposure, obesity, diabetes, and age. Type 1 endometrial carcinoma follows a progressive continuum of histopathologic change: from endometrial hyperplasia without atypia to endometrial hyperplasia with atypia (AEH) to well-differentiated endometrial cancer. Therefore, it is possible for endometrial carcinoma to be present simultaneously with AEH. The reported prevalence of concurrent endometrial carcinoma among patients with AEH on biopsy is between 17% and 52%.⁸ Thus, the clinical consideration is for hysterectomy, especially in the postmenopausal patient with a diagnosis of AEH.

Hysteroscopic diagnosis of AEH, however, is more difficult than identification of endometrial carcinoma because a range of morphologic characteristics exist that resemble normal endometrium as well as more progressive disease (VIDEO 5). De Franciscis and colleagues based a hysteroscopic diagnosis of hyperplasia on one or more of the following findings: focal or diffuse, papillary or polypoid, endometrial thickening; abnormal vascular patterns; evidence of glandular cysts; and abnormal architecture features of the glandular outlets (thickening, irregular gland density, or dilatation)⁹ (VIDEO 6).

Video 5. Endometrial polyp and atypical hyperplasia 

Vidyard Video

Additional studies, including that from Ianieri and colleagues, also have determined that AEH is difficult to discern visually from normal endometrium and other endometrial pathologies.⁶ In another investigation, Lasmar and coauthors reported a retrospective analysis of 4,054 hysteroscopic procedures with directed biopsies evaluating for concordance between the hysteroscopic view and histopathology.¹⁰ Agreement was 56.3% for AEH versus 94% for endometrial carcinoma. Among those with a histologic diagnosis of AEH, in 35.4% benign disease was suspected; in 2.1%, endometrial carcinoma was suspected; and in 6%, normal findings were presumed.¹⁰

Video 6. Nodular, polypoid atypical hyperplasia 

Vidyard Video

Because of the similarities in morphologic features between AEH and endometrial carcinoma, tissue biopsy under direct visualization is warranted to assure sampling of the most significantly abnormal tissue and to confirm visual interpretation of findings.

Techniques for hysteroscopic-directed biopsy

Using a visual assessment of endometrial abnormalities allows the surgeon to examine the entire uterine cavity and to biopsy the most suspicious and concerning lesions. The directed biopsy technique can involve a simple grasping maneuver: With the jaws of a small grasper open, push slightly forward to accumulate tissue within the jaw, close the jaw, and remove the tissue carefully through the cervix (VIDEO 7). The size of the sample may be limited, and multiple samples may be needed, depending on the quantity of the tissue retrieved.

Video 7. Visually directed endometrial biopsy

Vidyard Video

Another technique involves first creating a plane of tissue to be removed with scissors and subsequently grasping and removing the tissue (see video 1 and video 3). This particular technique will yield more tissue with one pass of the hysteroscope into the cavity. Careful removal of tissue through the cervix is facilitated by withdrawing the sample in the grasper and the hysteroscope together at the same time, without pulling the sample through the operative channel of the hysteroscope. Also, by turning off the inflow port, the stream of saline does not wash the sample off the grasper at hysteroscope removal from the cervix.

Blind biopsy. If visual inspection reveals a diffuse process within the uterine cavity such that no normal endometrium is noted and the abnormality is of equal degree throughout the endometrial surface, a decision can be made to replace directed biopsy with a blind biopsy. In this scenario, the blind biopsy is certain to sample the representative disease process and not potentially miss significant lesions (see video 4 and video 6). Otherwise, the hysteroscope-directed biopsy would be preferable.

Continue to: Potential for intraperitoneal dissemination of endometrial cancer...

 

 

Potential for intraperitoneal dissemination of endometrial cancer

There is some concern about intraperitoneal dissemination of endometrial carcinoma at the time of hysteroscopy and effect on disease prognosis. Chang and colleagues conducted a large meta-analysis and found that hysteroscopy performed in the presence of type 1 endometrial carcinoma statistically significantly increased the likelihood of positive intraperitoneal cytology.¹¹ In the included studies that reported survival rates (6 of 19), positive cytology did not alter the clinical outcome. The investigators recommended that hysteroscopy not be avoided for this reason, as it helps in the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma, especially in the early stages of disease.¹¹

In a recent retrospective analysis, Namazov and colleagues included only stage I endometrial carcinoma (to exclude the adverse effect of advanced stage on survival) and evaluated the assumed isolated effect of hysteroscopy on survival.¹² They compared women in whom stage I endometrial carcinoma was diagnosed: 355 by hysteroscopy and 969 by a nonhysteroscopy method (D&C or office endometrial biopsy). Tumors were classified and grouped as low grade (endometrioid grade 1-2 and villoglandular) and high grade, consisting of endometrioid grade 3 and type 2 endometrial carcinoma (serous carcinoma, clear cell carcinoma, and carcinosarcoma) (VIDEOS 8 and 9). Positive intraperitoneal cytology at the time of surgery was 2.3% and 2.1% (P = .832), with an average interval from diagnosis to surgery of 34.6 days (range, 7–43 days).

Video 8. Carcinosarcoma 

Vidyard Video

The authors proposed several explanations for the low rate of intraperitoneal cytology with hysteroscopy. One possibility is having lower mean intrauterine pressure below 100 mm Hg for saline uterine distension, although this was not standardized for all surgeons in the study but rather was a custom of the institution. In addition, the length of time between hysteroscopy and surgery may allow the immune-reactive peritoneum to respond to the cellular insult, thus decreasing the biologic burden at the time of surgery. The median follow-up was 52 months (range, 12–120 months), and there were no differences between the hysteroscopy and the nonhysteroscopy groups in the 5-year recurrence-free survival (90.2% vs 88.2%; P = .53), disease-specific survival (93.4% vs 91.7%; P = .5), and overall survival (86.2% vs 80.6%; P = .22). The authors concluded that hysteroscopy does not compromise the survival of patients with early-stage endometrial cancer.¹²

Video 9. Carcinosarcoma 

Vidyard Video

Retrospective data from Chen and colleagues regarding type 2 endometrial carcinoma indicated a statistically significant increase in positive intraperitoneal cytology for carcinomas evaluated by hysteroscopy versus D&C (30% vs 12%; P = .008).¹³ Among the patients who died, there was no difference in disease-specific survival (53 months for hysteroscopy and 63.5 months for D&C; P = .34), and there was no difference in overall recurrence rates.¹³ Compared with type 1 endometrial carcinoma, type 2 endometrial carcinoma behaves more aggressively, with a higher incidence of extrauterine disease and an increased propensity for recurrence and poor outcome even in the early stages of the disease. This makes it difficult to determine the role of hysteroscopy in the prognosis of these carcinomas, especially in this study where most patients were diagnosed at a later stage.

Key takeaways

Hysteroscopy and directed biopsy are highly effective for visual and histopathologic diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma, and they are recommended in the evaluation of AUB, especially in the postmenopausal woman. When the hysteroscopic view is negative, there is a high correlation with the absence of uterine cavity and endometrial pathology. Hysteroscopic diagnostic accuracy is improved with structured use of visual grading scales, well-defined descriptors of endometrial pathology, and hysteroscopist experience.

Low operating intrauterine pressure may decrease the intraperitoneal spread of carcinoma cells during hysteroscopy, and current evidence suggests that there is no change in type 1 endometrial carcinoma prognosis and overall outcomes. Type 2 endometrial carcinoma is more aggressive and is associated with poor outcomes even in early stages, and the effect on disease progression by intraperitoneal spread of carcinoma cells at hysteroscopy is not yet known. Hysteroscopic evaluation of the uterine cavity and directed biopsy is easily and safely performed in the office and adds significantly to the evaluation and management of endometrial carcinoma.

Don’t miss the videos that accompany this article

---

Access them in the article online at mdedge.com/obgyn

Video 1. Endometrial carcinoma and visually directed biopsy

Nodular endometrioid adenocarcinoma grade 1 (type 1 endometrial carcinoma), benign endometrial polyps, and endometrial atrophy in a postmenopausal woman with bleeding. This video demonstrates visually directed biopsy to assure sampling of the most significant lesion.

Video 2. Negative hysteroscopic view

Digital flexible diagnostic hysteroscopy showing a negative hysteroscopic view in a premenopausal woman.

Video 3. Cervical spread of adenocarcinoma and visually directed biopsy 

Diffuse endometrioid adenocarcinoma spread to the upper cervical canal near the internal cervical os. Hysteroscopic directed biopsy is performed.

Video 4. Endometrial adenocarcinoma

Fiberoptic flexible diagnostic hysteroscopy demonstrating diffuse endometrioid adenocarcinoma grade 3 with multiple morphologic features: polypoid, nodular, papillary, and glomerular with areas of necrosis.

Video 5. Endometrial polyp and atypical hyperplasia

Large benign endometrial polyp in an asymptomatic postmenopausal woman with enlarged endometrial stripe on pelvic ultrasound. The endometrium is atrophic except for a small whitish area on the anterior wall, which is atypical hyperplasia. This video highlights the need for visually directed biopsy to assure sampling of the most significant lesion.

Video 6. Nodular, polypoid atypical hyperplasia

Fiberoptic flexible diagnostic hysteroscopy showing diffuse nodular and polypoid atypical hyperplasia with abnormal glandular openings in a postmenopausal woman. Hysterectomy was performed secondary to the significant likelihood of concomitant endometrial carcinoma.

Video 7. Visually directed endometrial biopsy

Hysteroscopic-directed biopsy showing the technique of grasping and removing tissue of a benign adenomyosis cyst and proliferative endometrium.

Video 8. Carcinosarcoma

Carcinosarcoma (type 2 endometrial carcinoma) presents as a large intracavitary mass with soft, polypoid-like tissue in a symptomatic postmenopausal woman with bleeding.

Video 9. Carcinosarcoma

Carcinosarcoma (type 2 endometrial carcinoma) presents as a dense mass in a symptomatic postmenopausal woman with bleeding. This video shows the mass is nodular. These cancers typically grow into a spherical mass within the cavity

 

This is the third and final article in a series focusing on malpractice, liability, and reform. In the first article, we looked at the background on malpractice and reasons malpractice rates have been so high—including large verdicts and lawsuit-prone physicians. In the second article we considered recent experience and developments in malpractice exposure, who is sued and why. Finally, in this third article, we focus on apologies, apology laws, and liability.

“I’m sorry”

In childhood we are all taught the basic courtesies: “please” and “thank you,” and “I’m sorry,” when harm has occurred. Should we as adult health care providers fear the consequences of apologizing? Apologies are a way for clinicians to express empathy; they also serve as a tool to reduce medical malpractice claims.¹

Apologies, ethics, and care

The American Medical Association takes the position that a physician has an ethical duty to disclose a harmful error to a patient.^2,3 Indeed this approach has been an impetus for states to enact apology laws, which we discuss below. As pointed out in this 2013 article title, “Dealing with a medical mistake: Should physicians apologize to patients?”,⁴ the legal benefits of any apology are an issue. It is a controversial area in medicine still today, including in obstetrics and gynecology.

“Ethical codes for both M.D.s and D.O.s suggest providers should display honesty and empathy following adverse events and errors.”^1,3,5 In addition, the American Medical Association states, “a physician should at all times deal honestly and openly with patients.”² Concerns about liability that may result from truthful disclosure should not affect the physician’s honesty (TABLE). Increasingly, the law has sided with that principle through apology laws.

Continue to: Legal issues and medical apologies...

Legal issues and medical apologies

From a legal standpoint, traditionally, an apology from a physician to a patient could be used against a physician in a medical liability (malpractice) case as proof of negligence.

Statements of interest. Such out-of-court statements ordinarily would be “hearsay” and excluded from evidence; there is, however, an exception to this hearsay rule that allows “confessions” or “statements against interest” to be admissible against the party making the statement. The theory is that when a statement is harmful to the person making it, the person likely thought that it was true, and the statement should be admissible at trial. We do not generally go around confessing to things that are not true. Following an auto crash, if one driver jumps out of the car saying, “I am so sorry I hit you. I was using my cell phone and did not see you stop,” the statement is against the interest of the driver and could be used in court.

As a matter of general legal principle, the same issue can arise in medical practice. Suppose a physician says, “I am so sorry for your injury. We made a mistake in interpreting the data from the monitors.” That sounds a lot like not just an apology but a statement against interest. Malpractice cases generally are based on the claim that a “doctor failed to do what a reasonable provider in the same specialty would have done in a similar situation.”¹³ An apology may be little more than general sympathy (“I’m sorry to tell you that we have not cured the infection. Unfortunately, that will mean more time in the hospital.”), but it can include a confession of error (“I’m sorry we got the x-ray backward and removed the wrong kidney.”). In the latter kind of apology, courts traditionally have found a “statement against interest.”

The legal consequence of a statement against interest is that the statement may be admitted in court. Such statements do not automatically establish negligence, but they can be powerful evidence when presented to a jury.

Courts have struggled with medical apologies. General sympathy or feelings of regret or compassion do not generally rise to the level of an admission that the physician did not use reasonable care under the circumstances and ordinarily are not admissible. (For further details, we refer you to the case of Cobbs v. Grant.¹⁴ Even if a physician said to the patient that he “blamed himself for [the patient] being back in the hospital for a second time,…the statement signifies compassion, or at most, a feeling of remorse, for plaintiff’s ordeal.”) On the other hand, in cases in which a physician in an apology referred to a “careless” mistake or even a “negligent” mistake, courts have allowed it admitted at trial as a statement against interest. (A 1946 case, Woronka v. Sewall, is an example.¹⁵ In that case, the physician said to the patient, “My God, what a mess…she had a very hard delivery, and it was a burning shame to get [an injury] on top of it, and it was because of negligence when they were upstairs.”) Some of these cases come down to the provider’s use of a single word: fault, careless, or negligence.

The ambiguity over the legal place of medical apologies in medicine led attorneys to urge medical providers to avoid statements that might even remotely be taken as statements against interest, including real apologies. The confusion over the admissibility of medical apologies led state legislatures to adopt apology laws. These laws essentially limit what statements against interest may be introduced in professional liability cases when a provider has issued a responsibility or apologized.

Continue to: Apology statutes...

Apology statutes

Massachusetts was the first state to enact an apology law—in 1986.¹ As of 2019, a clear majority of states have some form of apology statute. “Apology laws are gaining traction,” was the first sentence in a 2012 review on the subject by Saitta and colleagues.³ Only a few (5 states) have “strong” statutes that have broad protection for statements of fault, error, and negligence, as well as sympathy. The other 33 states have statutes that only protect against statements of sympathy.^4,16 FIGURE 1 is a US map showing the apology laws by state.¹

Do apology statutes and apologies reduce liability?

The positive aspects of apology include personal, psychological, and emotional benefits to both the one apologizing and the one receiving the apology. It also may have financial benefits to health care providers.⁴ The assumption has been, and there has been some evidence for the proposition, that apologies reduce the possibility of malpractice claims. That is one of the reasons that institutions may have formal apology policies. Indeed, there is evidence that apologies reduce financial awards to patients, as manifest in the states of Pennsylvania and Kentucky.⁴ Apologies appear to reduce patient anger and can open the door to better communication with the provider. There is evidence that some kinds of apologies tend to diminish blame and make the injured patient less likely to pursue litigation.¹⁰ The conclusion from these studies might be that honest and open communication serves to decrease the incidence of medical malpractice lawsuit initiation and that honesty is the best policy.

It is important to note the difference, however, between apologies (or institutional apology policies) and apology laws. There is some evidence that apology and institutional apology policies may reduce malpractice claims or losses.^17,18 On the other hand, the studies of apology laws have not found that these laws have much impact on malpractice rates. An especially good and thorough study of the effect of apology laws nationwide, using insurance claims data, essentially found little net effect of the apology laws.^19,20 One other study could find no evidence that apology statutes reduce defensive medicine (so no reduction in provider concerns over liability).²¹

It should be noted that most studies on medical apology and its effects on malpractice claims generally have looked at the narrow or limited apology statutes (that do not cover expressions of fault or negligence). Few states have the broader statutes, and it is possible that those broader statutes would be more effective in reducing liability. Removing the disincentives to medical apologies is a good thing, but in and of itself it is probably not a liability game changer.

Continue to: Institutional policy and apology...

Institutional policy and apology

Some institutions have established an “inclusion of apology” strategy for medical errors. These policies appear to have a meaningful effect on reducing medical malpractice costs. These programs commonly include a proactive investigation, disclosure of error, and apologies. Such policies have been studied at the University of Michigan and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky. The University of Michigan program resulted in a 60% reduction in compensation costs for medical errors.²² It also cut litigation costs by half.²³ The review of the Kentucky VA program also was positive.¹⁷ FIGURE 2 illustrates the key features of the Michigan program.²⁴

Conclusions: Effective apologies

Our conclusions, first, are that apologies are important from all perspectives: ethical, medical, and legal. On the other hand, all of the attention given in recent years to apology statutes may have been misplaced, at least if they were intended to be malpractice reform.¹⁷

Institutional apology and response programs are likely successful because they are thoughtfully put together, generally based on the best understanding of how injured patients respond to apologies and what it takes to be sincere, and communicate that sincerity, in the apology. What is an effective apology?, “The acceptance of responsibility for having caused harm.” It may, for example, mean accepting some financial responsibility for the harm. It is also important that the apology is conveyed in such a way that it includes an element of self-critical expression.²⁵ Although there are many formulations of the elements of an effective apology, one example is, “(1) acknowledging and accepting responsibility for the offense; (2) expressing remorse with forbearance, sincerity, and honesty; (3) explaining the understanding of the offense; and (4) willingness to make reparations.”²⁶

At the other extreme is a medical professional, after a bad event, trying to engage in a half-hearted, awkward, or insincere apology on an ad hoc and poorly planned basis. Worse still, “when victims perceive apologies to be insincere and designed simply to cool them off, they react with more rather than less indignation.”²⁷ Of course, the “forced apology” may be the worst of all. An instance of this was addressed in a New Zealand study in which providers were “forced” to provide a written apology to a couple (Mr. and Mrs. B) and a separate written apology to Baby B when there was failure to discuss vitamin K administration during the antenatal period when it was indicated.²⁸ Rather than emphasizing required apology in such a case, which can seem hollow and disingenuous, emphasis was placed on the apology providing a “positive-physiological” effect for those harmed, and on strategies that “nurture the development of the moral maturity required for authentic apology.”

The great advantage of institutional or practice-wide policies is that they can be developed in the calm of planning, with good foresight and careful consideration. This is much different from having to come up with some approach in the heat of something having gone wrong. Ultimately, however, apologies are not about liability. They are about caring for, respecting, and communicating with those who are harmed. Apologizing is often the right and professional thing to do.

This is the third and final article in a series focusing on malpractice, liability, and reform. In the first article, we looked at the background on malpractice and reasons malpractice rates have been so high—including large verdicts and lawsuit-prone physicians. In the second article we considered recent experience and developments in malpractice exposure, who is sued and why. Finally, in this third article, we focus on apologies, apology laws, and liability.

“I’m sorry”

In childhood we are all taught the basic courtesies: “please” and “thank you,” and “I’m sorry,” when harm has occurred. Should we as adult health care providers fear the consequences of apologizing? Apologies are a way for clinicians to express empathy; they also serve as a tool to reduce medical malpractice claims.¹

Apologies, ethics, and care

The American Medical Association takes the position that a physician has an ethical duty to disclose a harmful error to a patient.^2,3 Indeed this approach has been an impetus for states to enact apology laws, which we discuss below. As pointed out in this 2013 article title, “Dealing with a medical mistake: Should physicians apologize to patients?”,⁴ the legal benefits of any apology are an issue. It is a controversial area in medicine still today, including in obstetrics and gynecology.

“Ethical codes for both M.D.s and D.O.s suggest providers should display honesty and empathy following adverse events and errors.”^1,3,5 In addition, the American Medical Association states, “a physician should at all times deal honestly and openly with patients.”² Concerns about liability that may result from truthful disclosure should not affect the physician’s honesty (TABLE). Increasingly, the law has sided with that principle through apology laws.

Continue to: Legal issues and medical apologies...

Legal issues and medical apologies

From a legal standpoint, traditionally, an apology from a physician to a patient could be used against a physician in a medical liability (malpractice) case as proof of negligence.

Statements of interest. Such out-of-court statements ordinarily would be “hearsay” and excluded from evidence; there is, however, an exception to this hearsay rule that allows “confessions” or “statements against interest” to be admissible against the party making the statement. The theory is that when a statement is harmful to the person making it, the person likely thought that it was true, and the statement should be admissible at trial. We do not generally go around confessing to things that are not true. Following an auto crash, if one driver jumps out of the car saying, “I am so sorry I hit you. I was using my cell phone and did not see you stop,” the statement is against the interest of the driver and could be used in court.

As a matter of general legal principle, the same issue can arise in medical practice. Suppose a physician says, “I am so sorry for your injury. We made a mistake in interpreting the data from the monitors.” That sounds a lot like not just an apology but a statement against interest. Malpractice cases generally are based on the claim that a “doctor failed to do what a reasonable provider in the same specialty would have done in a similar situation.”¹³ An apology may be little more than general sympathy (“I’m sorry to tell you that we have not cured the infection. Unfortunately, that will mean more time in the hospital.”), but it can include a confession of error (“I’m sorry we got the x-ray backward and removed the wrong kidney.”). In the latter kind of apology, courts traditionally have found a “statement against interest.”

The legal consequence of a statement against interest is that the statement may be admitted in court. Such statements do not automatically establish negligence, but they can be powerful evidence when presented to a jury.

Courts have struggled with medical apologies. General sympathy or feelings of regret or compassion do not generally rise to the level of an admission that the physician did not use reasonable care under the circumstances and ordinarily are not admissible. (For further details, we refer you to the case of Cobbs v. Grant.¹⁴ Even if a physician said to the patient that he “blamed himself for [the patient] being back in the hospital for a second time,…the statement signifies compassion, or at most, a feeling of remorse, for plaintiff’s ordeal.”) On the other hand, in cases in which a physician in an apology referred to a “careless” mistake or even a “negligent” mistake, courts have allowed it admitted at trial as a statement against interest. (A 1946 case, Woronka v. Sewall, is an example.¹⁵ In that case, the physician said to the patient, “My God, what a mess…she had a very hard delivery, and it was a burning shame to get [an injury] on top of it, and it was because of negligence when they were upstairs.”) Some of these cases come down to the provider’s use of a single word: fault, careless, or negligence.

The ambiguity over the legal place of medical apologies in medicine led attorneys to urge medical providers to avoid statements that might even remotely be taken as statements against interest, including real apologies. The confusion over the admissibility of medical apologies led state legislatures to adopt apology laws. These laws essentially limit what statements against interest may be introduced in professional liability cases when a provider has issued a responsibility or apologized.

Continue to: Apology statutes...

Apology statutes

Massachusetts was the first state to enact an apology law—in 1986.¹ As of 2019, a clear majority of states have some form of apology statute. “Apology laws are gaining traction,” was the first sentence in a 2012 review on the subject by Saitta and colleagues.³ Only a few (5 states) have “strong” statutes that have broad protection for statements of fault, error, and negligence, as well as sympathy. The other 33 states have statutes that only protect against statements of sympathy.^4,16 FIGURE 1 is a US map showing the apology laws by state.¹

Do apology statutes and apologies reduce liability?

The positive aspects of apology include personal, psychological, and emotional benefits to both the one apologizing and the one receiving the apology. It also may have financial benefits to health care providers.⁴ The assumption has been, and there has been some evidence for the proposition, that apologies reduce the possibility of malpractice claims. That is one of the reasons that institutions may have formal apology policies. Indeed, there is evidence that apologies reduce financial awards to patients, as manifest in the states of Pennsylvania and Kentucky.⁴ Apologies appear to reduce patient anger and can open the door to better communication with the provider. There is evidence that some kinds of apologies tend to diminish blame and make the injured patient less likely to pursue litigation.¹⁰ The conclusion from these studies might be that honest and open communication serves to decrease the incidence of medical malpractice lawsuit initiation and that honesty is the best policy.

It is important to note the difference, however, between apologies (or institutional apology policies) and apology laws. There is some evidence that apology and institutional apology policies may reduce malpractice claims or losses.^17,18 On the other hand, the studies of apology laws have not found that these laws have much impact on malpractice rates. An especially good and thorough study of the effect of apology laws nationwide, using insurance claims data, essentially found little net effect of the apology laws.^19,20 One other study could find no evidence that apology statutes reduce defensive medicine (so no reduction in provider concerns over liability).²¹

It should be noted that most studies on medical apology and its effects on malpractice claims generally have looked at the narrow or limited apology statutes (that do not cover expressions of fault or negligence). Few states have the broader statutes, and it is possible that those broader statutes would be more effective in reducing liability. Removing the disincentives to medical apologies is a good thing, but in and of itself it is probably not a liability game changer.

Continue to: Institutional policy and apology...

Institutional policy and apology

Some institutions have established an “inclusion of apology” strategy for medical errors. These policies appear to have a meaningful effect on reducing medical malpractice costs. These programs commonly include a proactive investigation, disclosure of error, and apologies. Such policies have been studied at the University of Michigan and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky. The University of Michigan program resulted in a 60% reduction in compensation costs for medical errors.²² It also cut litigation costs by half.²³ The review of the Kentucky VA program also was positive.¹⁷ FIGURE 2 illustrates the key features of the Michigan program.²⁴

Conclusions: Effective apologies

Our conclusions, first, are that apologies are important from all perspectives: ethical, medical, and legal. On the other hand, all of the attention given in recent years to apology statutes may have been misplaced, at least if they were intended to be malpractice reform.¹⁷

Institutional apology and response programs are likely successful because they are thoughtfully put together, generally based on the best understanding of how injured patients respond to apologies and what it takes to be sincere, and communicate that sincerity, in the apology. What is an effective apology?, “The acceptance of responsibility for having caused harm.” It may, for example, mean accepting some financial responsibility for the harm. It is also important that the apology is conveyed in such a way that it includes an element of self-critical expression.²⁵ Although there are many formulations of the elements of an effective apology, one example is, “(1) acknowledging and accepting responsibility for the offense; (2) expressing remorse with forbearance, sincerity, and honesty; (3) explaining the understanding of the offense; and (4) willingness to make reparations.”²⁶

At the other extreme is a medical professional, after a bad event, trying to engage in a half-hearted, awkward, or insincere apology on an ad hoc and poorly planned basis. Worse still, “when victims perceive apologies to be insincere and designed simply to cool them off, they react with more rather than less indignation.”²⁷ Of course, the “forced apology” may be the worst of all. An instance of this was addressed in a New Zealand study in which providers were “forced” to provide a written apology to a couple (Mr. and Mrs. B) and a separate written apology to Baby B when there was failure to discuss vitamin K administration during the antenatal period when it was indicated.²⁸ Rather than emphasizing required apology in such a case, which can seem hollow and disingenuous, emphasis was placed on the apology providing a “positive-physiological” effect for those harmed, and on strategies that “nurture the development of the moral maturity required for authentic apology.”

The great advantage of institutional or practice-wide policies is that they can be developed in the calm of planning, with good foresight and careful consideration. This is much different from having to come up with some approach in the heat of something having gone wrong. Ultimately, however, apologies are not about liability. They are about caring for, respecting, and communicating with those who are harmed. Apologizing is often the right and professional thing to do.

This is the third and final article in a series focusing on malpractice, liability, and reform. In the first article, we looked at the background on malpractice and reasons malpractice rates have been so high—including large verdicts and lawsuit-prone physicians. In the second article we considered recent experience and developments in malpractice exposure, who is sued and why. Finally, in this third article, we focus on apologies, apology laws, and liability.

“I’m sorry”

In childhood we are all taught the basic courtesies: “please” and “thank you,” and “I’m sorry,” when harm has occurred. Should we as adult health care providers fear the consequences of apologizing? Apologies are a way for clinicians to express empathy; they also serve as a tool to reduce medical malpractice claims.¹

Apologies, ethics, and care

The American Medical Association takes the position that a physician has an ethical duty to disclose a harmful error to a patient.^2,3 Indeed this approach has been an impetus for states to enact apology laws, which we discuss below. As pointed out in this 2013 article title, “Dealing with a medical mistake: Should physicians apologize to patients?”,⁴ the legal benefits of any apology are an issue. It is a controversial area in medicine still today, including in obstetrics and gynecology.

“Ethical codes for both M.D.s and D.O.s suggest providers should display honesty and empathy following adverse events and errors.”^1,3,5 In addition, the American Medical Association states, “a physician should at all times deal honestly and openly with patients.”² Concerns about liability that may result from truthful disclosure should not affect the physician’s honesty (TABLE). Increasingly, the law has sided with that principle through apology laws.

Continue to: Legal issues and medical apologies...

Legal issues and medical apologies

From a legal standpoint, traditionally, an apology from a physician to a patient could be used against a physician in a medical liability (malpractice) case as proof of negligence.

Statements of interest. Such out-of-court statements ordinarily would be “hearsay” and excluded from evidence; there is, however, an exception to this hearsay rule that allows “confessions” or “statements against interest” to be admissible against the party making the statement. The theory is that when a statement is harmful to the person making it, the person likely thought that it was true, and the statement should be admissible at trial. We do not generally go around confessing to things that are not true. Following an auto crash, if one driver jumps out of the car saying, “I am so sorry I hit you. I was using my cell phone and did not see you stop,” the statement is against the interest of the driver and could be used in court.

As a matter of general legal principle, the same issue can arise in medical practice. Suppose a physician says, “I am so sorry for your injury. We made a mistake in interpreting the data from the monitors.” That sounds a lot like not just an apology but a statement against interest. Malpractice cases generally are based on the claim that a “doctor failed to do what a reasonable provider in the same specialty would have done in a similar situation.”¹³ An apology may be little more than general sympathy (“I’m sorry to tell you that we have not cured the infection. Unfortunately, that will mean more time in the hospital.”), but it can include a confession of error (“I’m sorry we got the x-ray backward and removed the wrong kidney.”). In the latter kind of apology, courts traditionally have found a “statement against interest.”

The legal consequence of a statement against interest is that the statement may be admitted in court. Such statements do not automatically establish negligence, but they can be powerful evidence when presented to a jury.

Courts have struggled with medical apologies. General sympathy or feelings of regret or compassion do not generally rise to the level of an admission that the physician did not use reasonable care under the circumstances and ordinarily are not admissible. (For further details, we refer you to the case of Cobbs v. Grant.¹⁴ Even if a physician said to the patient that he “blamed himself for [the patient] being back in the hospital for a second time,…the statement signifies compassion, or at most, a feeling of remorse, for plaintiff’s ordeal.”) On the other hand, in cases in which a physician in an apology referred to a “careless” mistake or even a “negligent” mistake, courts have allowed it admitted at trial as a statement against interest. (A 1946 case, Woronka v. Sewall, is an example.¹⁵ In that case, the physician said to the patient, “My God, what a mess…she had a very hard delivery, and it was a burning shame to get [an injury] on top of it, and it was because of negligence when they were upstairs.”) Some of these cases come down to the provider’s use of a single word: fault, careless, or negligence.

The ambiguity over the legal place of medical apologies in medicine led attorneys to urge medical providers to avoid statements that might even remotely be taken as statements against interest, including real apologies. The confusion over the admissibility of medical apologies led state legislatures to adopt apology laws. These laws essentially limit what statements against interest may be introduced in professional liability cases when a provider has issued a responsibility or apologized.

Continue to: Apology statutes...

Apology statutes

Massachusetts was the first state to enact an apology law—in 1986.¹ As of 2019, a clear majority of states have some form of apology statute. “Apology laws are gaining traction,” was the first sentence in a 2012 review on the subject by Saitta and colleagues.³ Only a few (5 states) have “strong” statutes that have broad protection for statements of fault, error, and negligence, as well as sympathy. The other 33 states have statutes that only protect against statements of sympathy.^4,16 FIGURE 1 is a US map showing the apology laws by state.¹

Do apology statutes and apologies reduce liability?

The positive aspects of apology include personal, psychological, and emotional benefits to both the one apologizing and the one receiving the apology. It also may have financial benefits to health care providers.⁴ The assumption has been, and there has been some evidence for the proposition, that apologies reduce the possibility of malpractice claims. That is one of the reasons that institutions may have formal apology policies. Indeed, there is evidence that apologies reduce financial awards to patients, as manifest in the states of Pennsylvania and Kentucky.⁴ Apologies appear to reduce patient anger and can open the door to better communication with the provider. There is evidence that some kinds of apologies tend to diminish blame and make the injured patient less likely to pursue litigation.¹⁰ The conclusion from these studies might be that honest and open communication serves to decrease the incidence of medical malpractice lawsuit initiation and that honesty is the best policy.

It is important to note the difference, however, between apologies (or institutional apology policies) and apology laws. There is some evidence that apology and institutional apology policies may reduce malpractice claims or losses.^17,18 On the other hand, the studies of apology laws have not found that these laws have much impact on malpractice rates. An especially good and thorough study of the effect of apology laws nationwide, using insurance claims data, essentially found little net effect of the apology laws.^19,20 One other study could find no evidence that apology statutes reduce defensive medicine (so no reduction in provider concerns over liability).²¹

It should be noted that most studies on medical apology and its effects on malpractice claims generally have looked at the narrow or limited apology statutes (that do not cover expressions of fault or negligence). Few states have the broader statutes, and it is possible that those broader statutes would be more effective in reducing liability. Removing the disincentives to medical apologies is a good thing, but in and of itself it is probably not a liability game changer.

Continue to: Institutional policy and apology...

Institutional policy and apology

Some institutions have established an “inclusion of apology” strategy for medical errors. These policies appear to have a meaningful effect on reducing medical malpractice costs. These programs commonly include a proactive investigation, disclosure of error, and apologies. Such policies have been studied at the University of Michigan and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky. The University of Michigan program resulted in a 60% reduction in compensation costs for medical errors.²² It also cut litigation costs by half.²³ The review of the Kentucky VA program also was positive.¹⁷ FIGURE 2 illustrates the key features of the Michigan program.²⁴

Conclusions: Effective apologies

Our conclusions, first, are that apologies are important from all perspectives: ethical, medical, and legal. On the other hand, all of the attention given in recent years to apology statutes may have been misplaced, at least if they were intended to be malpractice reform.¹⁷

Institutional apology and response programs are likely successful because they are thoughtfully put together, generally based on the best understanding of how injured patients respond to apologies and what it takes to be sincere, and communicate that sincerity, in the apology. What is an effective apology?, “The acceptance of responsibility for having caused harm.” It may, for example, mean accepting some financial responsibility for the harm. It is also important that the apology is conveyed in such a way that it includes an element of self-critical expression.²⁵ Although there are many formulations of the elements of an effective apology, one example is, “(1) acknowledging and accepting responsibility for the offense; (2) expressing remorse with forbearance, sincerity, and honesty; (3) explaining the understanding of the offense; and (4) willingness to make reparations.”²⁶

At the other extreme is a medical professional, after a bad event, trying to engage in a half-hearted, awkward, or insincere apology on an ad hoc and poorly planned basis. Worse still, “when victims perceive apologies to be insincere and designed simply to cool them off, they react with more rather than less indignation.”²⁷ Of course, the “forced apology” may be the worst of all. An instance of this was addressed in a New Zealand study in which providers were “forced” to provide a written apology to a couple (Mr. and Mrs. B) and a separate written apology to Baby B when there was failure to discuss vitamin K administration during the antenatal period when it was indicated.²⁸ Rather than emphasizing required apology in such a case, which can seem hollow and disingenuous, emphasis was placed on the apology providing a “positive-physiological” effect for those harmed, and on strategies that “nurture the development of the moral maturity required for authentic apology.”

The great advantage of institutional or practice-wide policies is that they can be developed in the calm of planning, with good foresight and careful consideration. This is much different from having to come up with some approach in the heat of something having gone wrong. Ultimately, however, apologies are not about liability. They are about caring for, respecting, and communicating with those who are harmed. Apologizing is often the right and professional thing to do.

Obesity is a disease causing a public health crisis. In the United States, tobacco use and obesity are the two most important causes of preventable premature death. They result in an estimated 480,000¹ and 300,000² premature deaths per year, respectively. Obesity is a major contributor to diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and coronary heart disease. Obesity is also associated with increased rates of colon, breast, and endometrial cancer. Experts predict that in 2030, 50% of adults in the United States will have a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m², and 25% will have a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m².³ More women than men are predicted to be severely obese (FIGURE).³

As clinicians we need to increase our efforts to reduce the epidemic of obesity. ObGyns can play an important role in preventing and managing obesity, by recommending primary-care weight management practices, prescribing medications that influence central metabolism, and referring appropriate patients to bariatric surgery centers of excellence.

Primary-care weight management

Measuring BMI and recommending interventions to prevent and treat obesity are important components of a health maintenance encounter. For women who are overweight or obese, dietary changes and exercise are important recommendations. The American Heart Association recommends the following lifestyle interventions⁴:

• Eat a high-quality diet that includes vegetables, fruit, whole grains, beans, legumes, nuts, plant-based protein, lean animal protein, and fish.
• Limit intake of sugary drinks and foods, fatty or processed meats, full-fat dairy products, eggs, highly processed foods, and tropical oils.
• Exercise at least 150 minutes weekly at a moderate activity level, including muscle-strengthening activity.
• Reduce prolonged intervals of sitting.
• Consider using an activity tracker to monitor activity level.

Clinicians should consider referring overweight and obese patients to a nutritionist for a consultation to plan how to consume a high-quality, low-calorie diet. A nutritionist can spend time with patients explaining options for implementing a calorie-restricted diet. In addition, some health insurers will require patients to participate in a supervised calorie-restricted diet plan for at least 6 months before authorizing coverage of expensive weight loss medications or bariatric surgery. In addition to recommending diet and exercise, ObGyns may consider prescribing metformin for their obese patients.

Continue to: Metformin...

Metformin

Metformin is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Unlike insulin therapy, which is associated with weight gain, metformin is associated with modest weight loss. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) randomly assigned 3,234 nondiabetic participants with a fasting glucose level between 95 and 125 mg/dL and impaired glucose tolerance (140 to 199 mg/dL) after a 75-g oral glucose load to intensive lifestyle changes (calorie-restricted diet to achieve 7% weight loss plus 150 minutes of exercise weekly), metformin (850 mg twice daily), or placebo.^5,6 The mean age of the participants was 51 years, with a mean BMI of 34 kg/m². Most (68%) of the participants were women.

After 12 months of follow-up, mean weight loss in the intensive lifestyle change, metformin, and placebo groups was 6.5%, 2.7%, and 0.4%, respectively. After 2 years of treatment, weight loss among those who reliably took their metformin pills was approximately 4%, while participants in the placebo group had a 1% weight gain. Among those who continued to reliably take their metformin pills, the weight loss persisted through 9 years of follow up.

The mechanisms by which metformin causes weight loss are not clear. Metformin stimulates phosphorylation of adenosine monophosphate (AMP)-activated protein kinase, which regulates mitochondrial function, hepatic and muscle fatty acid oxidation, glucose transport, insulin secretion, and lipogenesis.⁷

Many ObGyns have experience in using metformin for the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome or gestational diabetes. Hence, the dosing and adverse effects of metformin are familiar to many obstetricians-gynecologists. Metformin is contraindicated in individuals with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min. Rarely, metformin can cause lactic acidosis. According to Lexicomp,⁸ the most common adverse effects of metformin extended release (metformin ER) are diarrhea (17%), nausea and vomiting (7%), and decreased vitamin B12 concentration (7%) due to malabsorption in the terminal ileum. Of note, in the DPP study, hemoglobin concentration was slightly lower over time in the metformin compared with the placebo group (13.6 mg/dL vs 13.8 mg/dL, respectively; P<.001).⁶ Some experts recommend annual vitamin B12 measurement in individuals taking metformin.

In my practice, I only prescribe metformin ER. I usually start metformin treatment with one 750 mg ER tablet with dinner. If the patient tolerates that dose, I increase the dose to two 750 mg ER tablets with dinner. Metformin-induced adverse effects include diarrhea (17%) and nausea and vomiting (7%). Metformin ER is inexpensive. A one-month supply of metformin (sixty 750 mg tablets) costs between $4 and $21 at major pharmacies.⁹ Health insurance companies generally do not require preauthorization to cover metformin prescriptions.

Weight loss medications

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved weight loss medications include: liraglutide (Victoza), orlistat (Xenical, Alli), combination phentermine-extended release topiramate (Qsymia), and combination extended release naltrexone-bupropion (Contrave). All FDA-approved weight loss medications result in mean weight loss in the range of 6% to 10%. Many of these medications are very expensive (more than $200 per month).¹⁰ Insurance preauthorization is commonly required for these medications. For ObGyns, it may be best to refer patients who would like to use a weight loss medication to a specialist or specialty center with expertise in using these medications.

Sleeve gastrectomy

Two children are playing in a school yard. One child proudly states, “My mother is an endocrinologist. She treats diabetes.” Not to be outdone, the other child replies, “My mother is a bariatric surgeon. She cures diabetes.”

The dialogue reflects the reality that bariatric surgery results in more reliable and significant weight loss than diet, exercise, or weight loss medications. Diet, exercise, and weight loss medications often result in a 5% to 10% decrease in weight, but bariatric surgery typically results in a 25% decrease in weight. Until recently, 3 bariatric surgical procedures were commonly performed: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and adjustable gastric banding (AGB). AGB is now seldom performed because it is less effective than RYGB and SG. Two recently published randomized trials compared the long-term outcomes associated with RYGB and SG. The studies found that SG and RYGB result in a similar degree of weight loss. RYGB resulted in slightly more weight loss than SG, but SG was associated with a lower rate of major complications, such as internal hernias. SG takes much less time to perform than RYGB. SG has become the most commonly performed bariatric surgery in premenopausal women considering pregnancy because of the low risk of internal hernias.

In the Swiss Multicenter Bypass or Sleeve Study (SM-BOSS), 217 participants with a mean BMI of 44 kg/m² and mean age of 45.5 years were randomly assigned to RYGB or SG and followed for 5 years.¹¹ The majority (72%) of the participants were women. At 5 years of follow-up, in the RYGB and SG groups, mean weight loss was 37 kg and 33 kg, respectively (P=.19). In both groups, weight loss nadir was reached 12 to 24 months after surgery. Expressed as a percentage of original weight, weight loss in the RYGB and SG groups was -29% and -25%, respectively (P=.02). Gastric reflux worsened in both the RYGB and SG groups (6% vs 32%, respectively). The number of reoperations in the RYGB and SG groups was 22% and 16%. Of note, among individuals with prevalent diabetes, RYGB and SG resulted in remission of the diabetes in 68% and 62% of participants, respectively.

In the Sleeve vs Bypass study (SLEEVEPASS), 240 participants, with mean BMI of 46 kg/m² and mean age of 48 years, were randomly assigned to RYGB or SG and followed for 5 years.¹² Most (70%) of the participants were women. Following bariatric surgery, BMI decreased significantly in both groups. In the RYGB group, BMI decreased from 48 kg/m² preoperatively to 35.4 kg/m² at 5 years of follow up. In the SG group, BMI decreased from 47 kg/m² preoperatively to 36.5 kg/m² at 5 years of follow up. Late major complications (defined as complications occurring from 30 days to 5 years postoperatively) occurred more frequently in the RYGB group (15%) versus the SG group (8%). All the late major complications required reoperation. In the SG group, 7 of 10 reoperations were for severe gastric reflux disease. In the RYGB group 17 of 18 reoperations were for suspected internal hernia, requiring closure of a mesenteric defect at reoperation. There was no treatment-related mortality during the 5-year follow up.

Guidelines for bariatric surgery are BMI ≥ 40 kg/m² without a comorbid illness or BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² with at least one serious comorbid disease, such as diabetes.¹³ ObGyns can build a synergistic relationship with bariatric surgeons by referring eligible patients for surgical consultation and, in return, accepting referrals. A paradox and challenge is that many health insurers require patients to complete a supervised medical weight loss management program prior to being approved for bariatric surgery. However, the medical weight loss program might result in the patient no longer being eligible for insurance coverage of their surgery. For example, a patient who had a BMI of 42 kg/m² prior to a medical weight loss management program who then lost enough weight to achieve a BMI of 38 kg/m² might no longer be eligible for insurance coverage of a bariatric operation.¹⁴

Continue to: ObGyns need to prioritize treatment for obesity...

ObGyns need to prioritize treatment for obesity

Between 1959 and 2014, US life expectancy increased from 69.9 years to 79.1 years. However, in 2015 and 2016 life expectancy in the United States decreased slightly to 78.9 years, while continuing to improve in other countries.¹⁵ What could cause such an unexpected trend? Some experts believe that excess overweight and obesity in the US population, resulting in increased rates of diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease, accounts for a significant proportion of the life expectancy gap between US citizens and those who reside in Australia, Finland, Japan, and Sweden.^16,17 All frontline clinicians play an important role in reversing the decades-long trend of increasing rates of overweight and obesity. Interventions that ObGyns could prioritize in their practices for treating overweight and obese patients include: a calorie-restricted diet, exercise, metformin, and SG.

Obesity is a disease causing a public health crisis. In the United States, tobacco use and obesity are the two most important causes of preventable premature death. They result in an estimated 480,000¹ and 300,000² premature deaths per year, respectively. Obesity is a major contributor to diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and coronary heart disease. Obesity is also associated with increased rates of colon, breast, and endometrial cancer. Experts predict that in 2030, 50% of adults in the United States will have a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m², and 25% will have a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m².³ More women than men are predicted to be severely obese (FIGURE).³

As clinicians we need to increase our efforts to reduce the epidemic of obesity. ObGyns can play an important role in preventing and managing obesity, by recommending primary-care weight management practices, prescribing medications that influence central metabolism, and referring appropriate patients to bariatric surgery centers of excellence.

Primary-care weight management

Measuring BMI and recommending interventions to prevent and treat obesity are important components of a health maintenance encounter. For women who are overweight or obese, dietary changes and exercise are important recommendations. The American Heart Association recommends the following lifestyle interventions⁴:

• Eat a high-quality diet that includes vegetables, fruit, whole grains, beans, legumes, nuts, plant-based protein, lean animal protein, and fish.
• Limit intake of sugary drinks and foods, fatty or processed meats, full-fat dairy products, eggs, highly processed foods, and tropical oils.
• Exercise at least 150 minutes weekly at a moderate activity level, including muscle-strengthening activity.
• Reduce prolonged intervals of sitting.
• Consider using an activity tracker to monitor activity level.

Clinicians should consider referring overweight and obese patients to a nutritionist for a consultation to plan how to consume a high-quality, low-calorie diet. A nutritionist can spend time with patients explaining options for implementing a calorie-restricted diet. In addition, some health insurers will require patients to participate in a supervised calorie-restricted diet plan for at least 6 months before authorizing coverage of expensive weight loss medications or bariatric surgery. In addition to recommending diet and exercise, ObGyns may consider prescribing metformin for their obese patients.

Continue to: Metformin...

Metformin

Metformin is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Unlike insulin therapy, which is associated with weight gain, metformin is associated with modest weight loss. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) randomly assigned 3,234 nondiabetic participants with a fasting glucose level between 95 and 125 mg/dL and impaired glucose tolerance (140 to 199 mg/dL) after a 75-g oral glucose load to intensive lifestyle changes (calorie-restricted diet to achieve 7% weight loss plus 150 minutes of exercise weekly), metformin (850 mg twice daily), or placebo.^5,6 The mean age of the participants was 51 years, with a mean BMI of 34 kg/m². Most (68%) of the participants were women.

After 12 months of follow-up, mean weight loss in the intensive lifestyle change, metformin, and placebo groups was 6.5%, 2.7%, and 0.4%, respectively. After 2 years of treatment, weight loss among those who reliably took their metformin pills was approximately 4%, while participants in the placebo group had a 1% weight gain. Among those who continued to reliably take their metformin pills, the weight loss persisted through 9 years of follow up.

The mechanisms by which metformin causes weight loss are not clear. Metformin stimulates phosphorylation of adenosine monophosphate (AMP)-activated protein kinase, which regulates mitochondrial function, hepatic and muscle fatty acid oxidation, glucose transport, insulin secretion, and lipogenesis.⁷

Many ObGyns have experience in using metformin for the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome or gestational diabetes. Hence, the dosing and adverse effects of metformin are familiar to many obstetricians-gynecologists. Metformin is contraindicated in individuals with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min. Rarely, metformin can cause lactic acidosis. According to Lexicomp,⁸ the most common adverse effects of metformin extended release (metformin ER) are diarrhea (17%), nausea and vomiting (7%), and decreased vitamin B12 concentration (7%) due to malabsorption in the terminal ileum. Of note, in the DPP study, hemoglobin concentration was slightly lower over time in the metformin compared with the placebo group (13.6 mg/dL vs 13.8 mg/dL, respectively; P<.001).⁶ Some experts recommend annual vitamin B12 measurement in individuals taking metformin.

In my practice, I only prescribe metformin ER. I usually start metformin treatment with one 750 mg ER tablet with dinner. If the patient tolerates that dose, I increase the dose to two 750 mg ER tablets with dinner. Metformin-induced adverse effects include diarrhea (17%) and nausea and vomiting (7%). Metformin ER is inexpensive. A one-month supply of metformin (sixty 750 mg tablets) costs between $4 and $21 at major pharmacies.⁹ Health insurance companies generally do not require preauthorization to cover metformin prescriptions.

Weight loss medications

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved weight loss medications include: liraglutide (Victoza), orlistat (Xenical, Alli), combination phentermine-extended release topiramate (Qsymia), and combination extended release naltrexone-bupropion (Contrave). All FDA-approved weight loss medications result in mean weight loss in the range of 6% to 10%. Many of these medications are very expensive (more than $200 per month).¹⁰ Insurance preauthorization is commonly required for these medications. For ObGyns, it may be best to refer patients who would like to use a weight loss medication to a specialist or specialty center with expertise in using these medications.

Sleeve gastrectomy

Two children are playing in a school yard. One child proudly states, “My mother is an endocrinologist. She treats diabetes.” Not to be outdone, the other child replies, “My mother is a bariatric surgeon. She cures diabetes.”

The dialogue reflects the reality that bariatric surgery results in more reliable and significant weight loss than diet, exercise, or weight loss medications. Diet, exercise, and weight loss medications often result in a 5% to 10% decrease in weight, but bariatric surgery typically results in a 25% decrease in weight. Until recently, 3 bariatric surgical procedures were commonly performed: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and adjustable gastric banding (AGB). AGB is now seldom performed because it is less effective than RYGB and SG. Two recently published randomized trials compared the long-term outcomes associated with RYGB and SG. The studies found that SG and RYGB result in a similar degree of weight loss. RYGB resulted in slightly more weight loss than SG, but SG was associated with a lower rate of major complications, such as internal hernias. SG takes much less time to perform than RYGB. SG has become the most commonly performed bariatric surgery in premenopausal women considering pregnancy because of the low risk of internal hernias.

In the Swiss Multicenter Bypass or Sleeve Study (SM-BOSS), 217 participants with a mean BMI of 44 kg/m² and mean age of 45.5 years were randomly assigned to RYGB or SG and followed for 5 years.¹¹ The majority (72%) of the participants were women. At 5 years of follow-up, in the RYGB and SG groups, mean weight loss was 37 kg and 33 kg, respectively (P=.19). In both groups, weight loss nadir was reached 12 to 24 months after surgery. Expressed as a percentage of original weight, weight loss in the RYGB and SG groups was -29% and -25%, respectively (P=.02). Gastric reflux worsened in both the RYGB and SG groups (6% vs 32%, respectively). The number of reoperations in the RYGB and SG groups was 22% and 16%. Of note, among individuals with prevalent diabetes, RYGB and SG resulted in remission of the diabetes in 68% and 62% of participants, respectively.

In the Sleeve vs Bypass study (SLEEVEPASS), 240 participants, with mean BMI of 46 kg/m² and mean age of 48 years, were randomly assigned to RYGB or SG and followed for 5 years.¹² Most (70%) of the participants were women. Following bariatric surgery, BMI decreased significantly in both groups. In the RYGB group, BMI decreased from 48 kg/m² preoperatively to 35.4 kg/m² at 5 years of follow up. In the SG group, BMI decreased from 47 kg/m² preoperatively to 36.5 kg/m² at 5 years of follow up. Late major complications (defined as complications occurring from 30 days to 5 years postoperatively) occurred more frequently in the RYGB group (15%) versus the SG group (8%). All the late major complications required reoperation. In the SG group, 7 of 10 reoperations were for severe gastric reflux disease. In the RYGB group 17 of 18 reoperations were for suspected internal hernia, requiring closure of a mesenteric defect at reoperation. There was no treatment-related mortality during the 5-year follow up.

Guidelines for bariatric surgery are BMI ≥ 40 kg/m² without a comorbid illness or BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² with at least one serious comorbid disease, such as diabetes.¹³ ObGyns can build a synergistic relationship with bariatric surgeons by referring eligible patients for surgical consultation and, in return, accepting referrals. A paradox and challenge is that many health insurers require patients to complete a supervised medical weight loss management program prior to being approved for bariatric surgery. However, the medical weight loss program might result in the patient no longer being eligible for insurance coverage of their surgery. For example, a patient who had a BMI of 42 kg/m² prior to a medical weight loss management program who then lost enough weight to achieve a BMI of 38 kg/m² might no longer be eligible for insurance coverage of a bariatric operation.¹⁴

Continue to: ObGyns need to prioritize treatment for obesity...

ObGyns need to prioritize treatment for obesity

Between 1959 and 2014, US life expectancy increased from 69.9 years to 79.1 years. However, in 2015 and 2016 life expectancy in the United States decreased slightly to 78.9 years, while continuing to improve in other countries.¹⁵ What could cause such an unexpected trend? Some experts believe that excess overweight and obesity in the US population, resulting in increased rates of diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease, accounts for a significant proportion of the life expectancy gap between US citizens and those who reside in Australia, Finland, Japan, and Sweden.^16,17 All frontline clinicians play an important role in reversing the decades-long trend of increasing rates of overweight and obesity. Interventions that ObGyns could prioritize in their practices for treating overweight and obese patients include: a calorie-restricted diet, exercise, metformin, and SG.

Obesity is a disease causing a public health crisis. In the United States, tobacco use and obesity are the two most important causes of preventable premature death. They result in an estimated 480,000¹ and 300,000² premature deaths per year, respectively. Obesity is a major contributor to diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and coronary heart disease. Obesity is also associated with increased rates of colon, breast, and endometrial cancer. Experts predict that in 2030, 50% of adults in the United States will have a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m², and 25% will have a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m².³ More women than men are predicted to be severely obese (FIGURE).³

As clinicians we need to increase our efforts to reduce the epidemic of obesity. ObGyns can play an important role in preventing and managing obesity, by recommending primary-care weight management practices, prescribing medications that influence central metabolism, and referring appropriate patients to bariatric surgery centers of excellence.

Primary-care weight management

Measuring BMI and recommending interventions to prevent and treat obesity are important components of a health maintenance encounter. For women who are overweight or obese, dietary changes and exercise are important recommendations. The American Heart Association recommends the following lifestyle interventions⁴:

• Eat a high-quality diet that includes vegetables, fruit, whole grains, beans, legumes, nuts, plant-based protein, lean animal protein, and fish.
• Limit intake of sugary drinks and foods, fatty or processed meats, full-fat dairy products, eggs, highly processed foods, and tropical oils.
• Exercise at least 150 minutes weekly at a moderate activity level, including muscle-strengthening activity.
• Reduce prolonged intervals of sitting.
• Consider using an activity tracker to monitor activity level.

Clinicians should consider referring overweight and obese patients to a nutritionist for a consultation to plan how to consume a high-quality, low-calorie diet. A nutritionist can spend time with patients explaining options for implementing a calorie-restricted diet. In addition, some health insurers will require patients to participate in a supervised calorie-restricted diet plan for at least 6 months before authorizing coverage of expensive weight loss medications or bariatric surgery. In addition to recommending diet and exercise, ObGyns may consider prescribing metformin for their obese patients.

Continue to: Metformin...

Metformin

Metformin is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Unlike insulin therapy, which is associated with weight gain, metformin is associated with modest weight loss. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) randomly assigned 3,234 nondiabetic participants with a fasting glucose level between 95 and 125 mg/dL and impaired glucose tolerance (140 to 199 mg/dL) after a 75-g oral glucose load to intensive lifestyle changes (calorie-restricted diet to achieve 7% weight loss plus 150 minutes of exercise weekly), metformin (850 mg twice daily), or placebo.^5,6 The mean age of the participants was 51 years, with a mean BMI of 34 kg/m². Most (68%) of the participants were women.

After 12 months of follow-up, mean weight loss in the intensive lifestyle change, metformin, and placebo groups was 6.5%, 2.7%, and 0.4%, respectively. After 2 years of treatment, weight loss among those who reliably took their metformin pills was approximately 4%, while participants in the placebo group had a 1% weight gain. Among those who continued to reliably take their metformin pills, the weight loss persisted through 9 years of follow up.

The mechanisms by which metformin causes weight loss are not clear. Metformin stimulates phosphorylation of adenosine monophosphate (AMP)-activated protein kinase, which regulates mitochondrial function, hepatic and muscle fatty acid oxidation, glucose transport, insulin secretion, and lipogenesis.⁷

Many ObGyns have experience in using metformin for the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome or gestational diabetes. Hence, the dosing and adverse effects of metformin are familiar to many obstetricians-gynecologists. Metformin is contraindicated in individuals with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min. Rarely, metformin can cause lactic acidosis. According to Lexicomp,⁸ the most common adverse effects of metformin extended release (metformin ER) are diarrhea (17%), nausea and vomiting (7%), and decreased vitamin B12 concentration (7%) due to malabsorption in the terminal ileum. Of note, in the DPP study, hemoglobin concentration was slightly lower over time in the metformin compared with the placebo group (13.6 mg/dL vs 13.8 mg/dL, respectively; P<.001).⁶ Some experts recommend annual vitamin B12 measurement in individuals taking metformin.

In my practice, I only prescribe metformin ER. I usually start metformin treatment with one 750 mg ER tablet with dinner. If the patient tolerates that dose, I increase the dose to two 750 mg ER tablets with dinner. Metformin-induced adverse effects include diarrhea (17%) and nausea and vomiting (7%). Metformin ER is inexpensive. A one-month supply of metformin (sixty 750 mg tablets) costs between $4 and $21 at major pharmacies.⁹ Health insurance companies generally do not require preauthorization to cover metformin prescriptions.

Weight loss medications

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved weight loss medications include: liraglutide (Victoza), orlistat (Xenical, Alli), combination phentermine-extended release topiramate (Qsymia), and combination extended release naltrexone-bupropion (Contrave). All FDA-approved weight loss medications result in mean weight loss in the range of 6% to 10%. Many of these medications are very expensive (more than $200 per month).¹⁰ Insurance preauthorization is commonly required for these medications. For ObGyns, it may be best to refer patients who would like to use a weight loss medication to a specialist or specialty center with expertise in using these medications.

Sleeve gastrectomy

Two children are playing in a school yard. One child proudly states, “My mother is an endocrinologist. She treats diabetes.” Not to be outdone, the other child replies, “My mother is a bariatric surgeon. She cures diabetes.”

The dialogue reflects the reality that bariatric surgery results in more reliable and significant weight loss than diet, exercise, or weight loss medications. Diet, exercise, and weight loss medications often result in a 5% to 10% decrease in weight, but bariatric surgery typically results in a 25% decrease in weight. Until recently, 3 bariatric surgical procedures were commonly performed: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and adjustable gastric banding (AGB). AGB is now seldom performed because it is less effective than RYGB and SG. Two recently published randomized trials compared the long-term outcomes associated with RYGB and SG. The studies found that SG and RYGB result in a similar degree of weight loss. RYGB resulted in slightly more weight loss than SG, but SG was associated with a lower rate of major complications, such as internal hernias. SG takes much less time to perform than RYGB. SG has become the most commonly performed bariatric surgery in premenopausal women considering pregnancy because of the low risk of internal hernias.

In the Swiss Multicenter Bypass or Sleeve Study (SM-BOSS), 217 participants with a mean BMI of 44 kg/m² and mean age of 45.5 years were randomly assigned to RYGB or SG and followed for 5 years.¹¹ The majority (72%) of the participants were women. At 5 years of follow-up, in the RYGB and SG groups, mean weight loss was 37 kg and 33 kg, respectively (P=.19). In both groups, weight loss nadir was reached 12 to 24 months after surgery. Expressed as a percentage of original weight, weight loss in the RYGB and SG groups was -29% and -25%, respectively (P=.02). Gastric reflux worsened in both the RYGB and SG groups (6% vs 32%, respectively). The number of reoperations in the RYGB and SG groups was 22% and 16%. Of note, among individuals with prevalent diabetes, RYGB and SG resulted in remission of the diabetes in 68% and 62% of participants, respectively.

In the Sleeve vs Bypass study (SLEEVEPASS), 240 participants, with mean BMI of 46 kg/m² and mean age of 48 years, were randomly assigned to RYGB or SG and followed for 5 years.¹² Most (70%) of the participants were women. Following bariatric surgery, BMI decreased significantly in both groups. In the RYGB group, BMI decreased from 48 kg/m² preoperatively to 35.4 kg/m² at 5 years of follow up. In the SG group, BMI decreased from 47 kg/m² preoperatively to 36.5 kg/m² at 5 years of follow up. Late major complications (defined as complications occurring from 30 days to 5 years postoperatively) occurred more frequently in the RYGB group (15%) versus the SG group (8%). All the late major complications required reoperation. In the SG group, 7 of 10 reoperations were for severe gastric reflux disease. In the RYGB group 17 of 18 reoperations were for suspected internal hernia, requiring closure of a mesenteric defect at reoperation. There was no treatment-related mortality during the 5-year follow up.

Guidelines for bariatric surgery are BMI ≥ 40 kg/m² without a comorbid illness or BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² with at least one serious comorbid disease, such as diabetes.¹³ ObGyns can build a synergistic relationship with bariatric surgeons by referring eligible patients for surgical consultation and, in return, accepting referrals. A paradox and challenge is that many health insurers require patients to complete a supervised medical weight loss management program prior to being approved for bariatric surgery. However, the medical weight loss program might result in the patient no longer being eligible for insurance coverage of their surgery. For example, a patient who had a BMI of 42 kg/m² prior to a medical weight loss management program who then lost enough weight to achieve a BMI of 38 kg/m² might no longer be eligible for insurance coverage of a bariatric operation.¹⁴

Continue to: ObGyns need to prioritize treatment for obesity...

ObGyns need to prioritize treatment for obesity

Between 1959 and 2014, US life expectancy increased from 69.9 years to 79.1 years. However, in 2015 and 2016 life expectancy in the United States decreased slightly to 78.9 years, while continuing to improve in other countries.¹⁵ What could cause such an unexpected trend? Some experts believe that excess overweight and obesity in the US population, resulting in increased rates of diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease, accounts for a significant proportion of the life expectancy gap between US citizens and those who reside in Australia, Finland, Japan, and Sweden.^16,17 All frontline clinicians play an important role in reversing the decades-long trend of increasing rates of overweight and obesity. Interventions that ObGyns could prioritize in their practices for treating overweight and obese patients include: a calorie-restricted diet, exercise, metformin, and SG.

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear opening arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo. (Please note that this case was originally referred to as June Medical Services v. Gee. However, Secretary Rebekah Gee resigned from her position on January 31, 2020, and was replaced by Interim Secretary Stephen Russo.) The case will examine a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620, or LA 620), originally passed in 2014, that requires physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.¹ When LA 620 was signed into law in 2014, 5 of Louisiana’s 6 abortion clinics would not have met the standards created by this legislation and would have been forced to close, potentially leaving the vast majority of women in Louisiana without access to an abortion provider, and disproportionately impacting poor and rural women. Prior to enactment of this law, physicians at these 5 clinics attempted to obtain admitting privileges, and all were denied. The denials occurred due to two main reasons—because the providers admitted too few patients each year to qualify for hospital privileges or simply because they provided abortion care.² Shortly after this legislation was signed into law, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged the law, citing the undue burden it created for patients attempting to access abortion care.
 

Prior case also considered question of hospital privileges for abortion providers

Interestingly, SCOTUS already has ruled on this very question. In 1992, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ And in 2016, when considering whether or not requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital privileges creates an undue burden in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s answer was yes, it does. WWH, with legal aid from CRR, challenged Texas House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which similar to LA 620, required abortion providers to have local admitting privileges. Based largely on the precedent set in Casey, SCOTUS ruled 5-3 in favor of WWH.

The Louisiana law currently in question was written and challenged in district court simultaneous to the Supreme Court’s review of WWH. The district court declared LA 620 invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement, finding the law would “drastically burden women’s right to choose abortions.”⁴ However, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and overturned the district court decision, finding the lower court’s analysis erroneous and stating, “no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of [LA 620].” The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that, despite the precedent of WWH, LA 620 did not create an undue burden because of state-level differences in admitting privileges, demographics, and geography. They also found that only 30% of the 2 million women living in Louisiana would be impacted by the law, predominantly via longer wait times, and argued that this does not represent significant burden. The plaintiffs filed for an emergency stay with SCOTUS, who granted the stay pending a full hearing. On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine if the Fifth Circuit was correct in drawing a distinction between LA 620 and the SCOTUS verdict in WWH.

Targeted restrictions on abortion providers

LA 620 joins a long series of laws meant to enact targeted restrictions on abortion providers, or “TRAP” laws. TRAP laws are written to limit access to abortion under the guise of improving patient safety, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and include such various regulations as admitting privileges, facilities requirements, waiting periods, and parental or partner notification. Many such laws have been enacted in the last decade, and many struck down based on judicial precedent.

How the Supreme Court has ruled in the past

When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court can either decline to hear the case, thereby leaving the lower courts’ ruling in place, or choose to hear the case in full and either affirm or overturn the lower court’s decision. After issuing a ruling in WWH, the 2016-2017 Roberts Court declined to hear challenges from other states with similarly overturned laws, leaving the laws struck down. In electing to hear June Medical Services v. Russo, the court has the opportunity to uphold or overturn the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision. However, today’s Supreme Court differs greatly from the Supreme Court in 2016.

In 2016, the court ruled 5-3 to overturn H.B. 2 in WWH shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist who has never directly ruled on an abortion case.⁵ In 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the court’s majority opinion on Casey and was among the majority on WWH, retired, and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ruled once on the right to abortion in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, where he argued that precedent states that the government has “permissible interests in favoring fetal life…and refraining from facilitating abortion,” and that significant delay in care did not constitute undue burden.⁶ In regard to the 5-4 stay issued by the court in June Medical Services, Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in voting to deny the application for stay, and was the only justice to issue an opinion alongside the ruling, arguing that because the doctors in question had not applied for and been denied admitting privileges since the WWH ruling, the case hinges on theoretical rather than demonstrable undue burden.⁷ Appointed by President Donald Trump, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are widely considered to be conservative judges, and while neither has a strong judicial record on abortion rights, both are anticipated to side with the conservative majority on the court.

The Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedent, but concerns are high

The question of precedent will be central in SCOTUS hearing June Medical Services v. Russo so quickly after the WWH decision. Additionally, in hearing this case, the court will have the opportunity to reexamine all relevant precedent, including the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision and even Roe v. Wade. With a conservative court and an increasingly charged political environment, reproductive rights advocates fear that the June Medical Services v. Russo ruling may be the first step toward dismantling judicial protection of abortion rights in the United States.

If SCOTUS rules against June Medical Services, stating that admitting privileges do not cause an undue burden for women seeking to access abortion care, other states likely will introduce and enact similar legislation. These TRAP laws have the potential to limit or eliminate access to abortion for 25 million people of reproductive age. Numerous studies have demonstrated that limiting access to abortion care does not decrease the number of abortions but can result in patients using unsafe means to obtain an abortion.⁸

The medical community recognizes the danger of enacting restrictive legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with the American Medical Association, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Association for Sexual and Reproductive Medicine, the American Association of Family Practitioners, and many others, filed an amicus curiae in support of the June Medical Services plaintiffs.⁹ These brief filings are critical to ensuring the courts hear physician voices in this important legal decision, and ACOG’s briefs have been quoted in several previous Supreme Court opinions, concurrences, and dissents.
 

Action items

• Although June Medical Services v. Russo’s decision will not be made until early summer 2020, we can continue to use our voices and expertise to speak out against laws designed to limit access to abortion—at the state and federal levels. As women’s health clinicians, we see the impact abortion restrictions have on our patients, especially our low income and rural patients. Sharing these stories with our legislators, testifying for or against legislation, and speaking out in our communities can have a powerful impact. Check with your local ACOG chapter or with ACOG’s state and government affairs office for more information.
• Follow along with this case at SCOTUS Blog.
• Lastly, make sure you are registered to vote. We are in an election year, and using our voices in and out of the ballot box is critical. You can register here.

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear opening arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo. (Please note that this case was originally referred to as June Medical Services v. Gee. However, Secretary Rebekah Gee resigned from her position on January 31, 2020, and was replaced by Interim Secretary Stephen Russo.) The case will examine a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620, or LA 620), originally passed in 2014, that requires physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.¹ When LA 620 was signed into law in 2014, 5 of Louisiana’s 6 abortion clinics would not have met the standards created by this legislation and would have been forced to close, potentially leaving the vast majority of women in Louisiana without access to an abortion provider, and disproportionately impacting poor and rural women. Prior to enactment of this law, physicians at these 5 clinics attempted to obtain admitting privileges, and all were denied. The denials occurred due to two main reasons—because the providers admitted too few patients each year to qualify for hospital privileges or simply because they provided abortion care.² Shortly after this legislation was signed into law, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged the law, citing the undue burden it created for patients attempting to access abortion care.
 

Prior case also considered question of hospital privileges for abortion providers

Interestingly, SCOTUS already has ruled on this very question. In 1992, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ And in 2016, when considering whether or not requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital privileges creates an undue burden in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s answer was yes, it does. WWH, with legal aid from CRR, challenged Texas House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which similar to LA 620, required abortion providers to have local admitting privileges. Based largely on the precedent set in Casey, SCOTUS ruled 5-3 in favor of WWH.

The Louisiana law currently in question was written and challenged in district court simultaneous to the Supreme Court’s review of WWH. The district court declared LA 620 invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement, finding the law would “drastically burden women’s right to choose abortions.”⁴ However, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and overturned the district court decision, finding the lower court’s analysis erroneous and stating, “no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of [LA 620].” The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that, despite the precedent of WWH, LA 620 did not create an undue burden because of state-level differences in admitting privileges, demographics, and geography. They also found that only 30% of the 2 million women living in Louisiana would be impacted by the law, predominantly via longer wait times, and argued that this does not represent significant burden. The plaintiffs filed for an emergency stay with SCOTUS, who granted the stay pending a full hearing. On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine if the Fifth Circuit was correct in drawing a distinction between LA 620 and the SCOTUS verdict in WWH.

Targeted restrictions on abortion providers

LA 620 joins a long series of laws meant to enact targeted restrictions on abortion providers, or “TRAP” laws. TRAP laws are written to limit access to abortion under the guise of improving patient safety, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and include such various regulations as admitting privileges, facilities requirements, waiting periods, and parental or partner notification. Many such laws have been enacted in the last decade, and many struck down based on judicial precedent.

How the Supreme Court has ruled in the past

When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court can either decline to hear the case, thereby leaving the lower courts’ ruling in place, or choose to hear the case in full and either affirm or overturn the lower court’s decision. After issuing a ruling in WWH, the 2016-2017 Roberts Court declined to hear challenges from other states with similarly overturned laws, leaving the laws struck down. In electing to hear June Medical Services v. Russo, the court has the opportunity to uphold or overturn the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision. However, today’s Supreme Court differs greatly from the Supreme Court in 2016.

In 2016, the court ruled 5-3 to overturn H.B. 2 in WWH shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist who has never directly ruled on an abortion case.⁵ In 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the court’s majority opinion on Casey and was among the majority on WWH, retired, and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ruled once on the right to abortion in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, where he argued that precedent states that the government has “permissible interests in favoring fetal life…and refraining from facilitating abortion,” and that significant delay in care did not constitute undue burden.⁶ In regard to the 5-4 stay issued by the court in June Medical Services, Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in voting to deny the application for stay, and was the only justice to issue an opinion alongside the ruling, arguing that because the doctors in question had not applied for and been denied admitting privileges since the WWH ruling, the case hinges on theoretical rather than demonstrable undue burden.⁷ Appointed by President Donald Trump, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are widely considered to be conservative judges, and while neither has a strong judicial record on abortion rights, both are anticipated to side with the conservative majority on the court.

The Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedent, but concerns are high

The question of precedent will be central in SCOTUS hearing June Medical Services v. Russo so quickly after the WWH decision. Additionally, in hearing this case, the court will have the opportunity to reexamine all relevant precedent, including the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision and even Roe v. Wade. With a conservative court and an increasingly charged political environment, reproductive rights advocates fear that the June Medical Services v. Russo ruling may be the first step toward dismantling judicial protection of abortion rights in the United States.

If SCOTUS rules against June Medical Services, stating that admitting privileges do not cause an undue burden for women seeking to access abortion care, other states likely will introduce and enact similar legislation. These TRAP laws have the potential to limit or eliminate access to abortion for 25 million people of reproductive age. Numerous studies have demonstrated that limiting access to abortion care does not decrease the number of abortions but can result in patients using unsafe means to obtain an abortion.⁸

The medical community recognizes the danger of enacting restrictive legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with the American Medical Association, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Association for Sexual and Reproductive Medicine, the American Association of Family Practitioners, and many others, filed an amicus curiae in support of the June Medical Services plaintiffs.⁹ These brief filings are critical to ensuring the courts hear physician voices in this important legal decision, and ACOG’s briefs have been quoted in several previous Supreme Court opinions, concurrences, and dissents.
 

Action items

• Although June Medical Services v. Russo’s decision will not be made until early summer 2020, we can continue to use our voices and expertise to speak out against laws designed to limit access to abortion—at the state and federal levels. As women’s health clinicians, we see the impact abortion restrictions have on our patients, especially our low income and rural patients. Sharing these stories with our legislators, testifying for or against legislation, and speaking out in our communities can have a powerful impact. Check with your local ACOG chapter or with ACOG’s state and government affairs office for more information.
• Follow along with this case at SCOTUS Blog.
• Lastly, make sure you are registered to vote. We are in an election year, and using our voices in and out of the ballot box is critical. You can register here.

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear opening arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo. (Please note that this case was originally referred to as June Medical Services v. Gee. However, Secretary Rebekah Gee resigned from her position on January 31, 2020, and was replaced by Interim Secretary Stephen Russo.) The case will examine a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620, or LA 620), originally passed in 2014, that requires physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.¹ When LA 620 was signed into law in 2014, 5 of Louisiana’s 6 abortion clinics would not have met the standards created by this legislation and would have been forced to close, potentially leaving the vast majority of women in Louisiana without access to an abortion provider, and disproportionately impacting poor and rural women. Prior to enactment of this law, physicians at these 5 clinics attempted to obtain admitting privileges, and all were denied. The denials occurred due to two main reasons—because the providers admitted too few patients each year to qualify for hospital privileges or simply because they provided abortion care.² Shortly after this legislation was signed into law, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged the law, citing the undue burden it created for patients attempting to access abortion care.
 

Prior case also considered question of hospital privileges for abortion providers

Interestingly, SCOTUS already has ruled on this very question. In 1992, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ And in 2016, when considering whether or not requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital privileges creates an undue burden in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s answer was yes, it does. WWH, with legal aid from CRR, challenged Texas House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which similar to LA 620, required abortion providers to have local admitting privileges. Based largely on the precedent set in Casey, SCOTUS ruled 5-3 in favor of WWH.

The Louisiana law currently in question was written and challenged in district court simultaneous to the Supreme Court’s review of WWH. The district court declared LA 620 invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement, finding the law would “drastically burden women’s right to choose abortions.”⁴ However, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and overturned the district court decision, finding the lower court’s analysis erroneous and stating, “no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of [LA 620].” The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that, despite the precedent of WWH, LA 620 did not create an undue burden because of state-level differences in admitting privileges, demographics, and geography. They also found that only 30% of the 2 million women living in Louisiana would be impacted by the law, predominantly via longer wait times, and argued that this does not represent significant burden. The plaintiffs filed for an emergency stay with SCOTUS, who granted the stay pending a full hearing. On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine if the Fifth Circuit was correct in drawing a distinction between LA 620 and the SCOTUS verdict in WWH.

Targeted restrictions on abortion providers

LA 620 joins a long series of laws meant to enact targeted restrictions on abortion providers, or “TRAP” laws. TRAP laws are written to limit access to abortion under the guise of improving patient safety, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and include such various regulations as admitting privileges, facilities requirements, waiting periods, and parental or partner notification. Many such laws have been enacted in the last decade, and many struck down based on judicial precedent.

How the Supreme Court has ruled in the past

When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court can either decline to hear the case, thereby leaving the lower courts’ ruling in place, or choose to hear the case in full and either affirm or overturn the lower court’s decision. After issuing a ruling in WWH, the 2016-2017 Roberts Court declined to hear challenges from other states with similarly overturned laws, leaving the laws struck down. In electing to hear June Medical Services v. Russo, the court has the opportunity to uphold or overturn the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision. However, today’s Supreme Court differs greatly from the Supreme Court in 2016.

In 2016, the court ruled 5-3 to overturn H.B. 2 in WWH shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist who has never directly ruled on an abortion case.⁵ In 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the court’s majority opinion on Casey and was among the majority on WWH, retired, and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ruled once on the right to abortion in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, where he argued that precedent states that the government has “permissible interests in favoring fetal life…and refraining from facilitating abortion,” and that significant delay in care did not constitute undue burden.⁶ In regard to the 5-4 stay issued by the court in June Medical Services, Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in voting to deny the application for stay, and was the only justice to issue an opinion alongside the ruling, arguing that because the doctors in question had not applied for and been denied admitting privileges since the WWH ruling, the case hinges on theoretical rather than demonstrable undue burden.⁷ Appointed by President Donald Trump, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are widely considered to be conservative judges, and while neither has a strong judicial record on abortion rights, both are anticipated to side with the conservative majority on the court.

The Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedent, but concerns are high

The question of precedent will be central in SCOTUS hearing June Medical Services v. Russo so quickly after the WWH decision. Additionally, in hearing this case, the court will have the opportunity to reexamine all relevant precedent, including the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision and even Roe v. Wade. With a conservative court and an increasingly charged political environment, reproductive rights advocates fear that the June Medical Services v. Russo ruling may be the first step toward dismantling judicial protection of abortion rights in the United States.

If SCOTUS rules against June Medical Services, stating that admitting privileges do not cause an undue burden for women seeking to access abortion care, other states likely will introduce and enact similar legislation. These TRAP laws have the potential to limit or eliminate access to abortion for 25 million people of reproductive age. Numerous studies have demonstrated that limiting access to abortion care does not decrease the number of abortions but can result in patients using unsafe means to obtain an abortion.⁸

The medical community recognizes the danger of enacting restrictive legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with the American Medical Association, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Association for Sexual and Reproductive Medicine, the American Association of Family Practitioners, and many others, filed an amicus curiae in support of the June Medical Services plaintiffs.⁹ These brief filings are critical to ensuring the courts hear physician voices in this important legal decision, and ACOG’s briefs have been quoted in several previous Supreme Court opinions, concurrences, and dissents.
 

Action items

• Although June Medical Services v. Russo’s decision will not be made until early summer 2020, we can continue to use our voices and expertise to speak out against laws designed to limit access to abortion—at the state and federal levels. As women’s health clinicians, we see the impact abortion restrictions have on our patients, especially our low income and rural patients. Sharing these stories with our legislators, testifying for or against legislation, and speaking out in our communities can have a powerful impact. Check with your local ACOG chapter or with ACOG’s state and government affairs office for more information.
• Follow along with this case at SCOTUS Blog.
• Lastly, make sure you are registered to vote. We are in an election year, and using our voices in and out of the ballot box is critical. You can register here.

Condylomata acuminata

Condylomata acuminata (CA), or anogenital warts, are the cutaneous manifestation of infection by human papillomavirus (HPV). The virus is transmitted primarily via sexual contact with infected skin or mucosa, although it also may result from nonsexual contact or vertical transmission during vaginal delivery.¹ More than 200 types of HPV have been identified; however, genotypes 6 and 11 are most commonly implicated in the development of CA and are associated with a low risk for oncogenesis. Nevertheless, CA pose a tremendous economic and psychological burden on the health care system and those affected, respectively, representing the most common sexually transmitted viral disease in the United States.²

Clinical presentation

CA present as discrete or clustered smooth, papillomatous, sessile, exophytic papules or plaques, often lacking the thick, horny scale seen in common warts, and they may be broad based or pedunculated.² The anogenital region is affected, including the external genitalia, perineum, perianal area, and adjacent skin such as the mons pubis and inguinal folds. Extension into the urethra or vaginal, cervical, and anal canals is possible, although rarely beyond the dentate line.^2,3 Lesions typically are asymptomatic but may be extensive or disfiguring, often noticed by patients upon self-inspection and leading to significant distress. Symptoms such as pruritus, pain, bleeding, or discharge may develop in traumatized or secondarily infected lesions.^1,3

Diagnosis

Although CA can be diagnosed clinically, biopsy facilitates definitive diagnosis in less clear-cut cases.^1,3 Histologically, CA are characterized by hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, acanthosis, and papillomatosis, with the presence of koilocytes in the epidermis.²

Treatment

Treatment of CA is challenging, as there are currently no antiviral therapies available to cure the condition. Treatment options include destructive, immunomodulatory, and antiproliferative therapies, either alone or in combination. There is no first-line therapy indicated for CA, and treatment selection is dependent on multiple patient-specific factors, including the size, number, and anatomic location of the lesions, as well as ease of treatment and adverse effects.²

Topical therapies. For external CA, there are several treatments that may be applied by patients themselves, including topical podophyllotoxin, imiquimod, and sinecatechins (TABLE).¹ Podophyllotoxin (brand name Condylox) is an antiproliferative agent available as a 0.15% cream or 0.5% solution.^1,2 It should be applied twice daily for 3 consecutive days per week for up to 4 weeks. Podophyllotoxin is contraindicated in pregnancy and may cause local irritation.²

Imiquimod (brand names Aldara and Zyclara) is an immunomodulatory, available as a 5% and 3.75% cream. For external genital warts, the cream should be applied 3 times per week for up to 16 weeks; for perianal warts it should be applied daily for up to 8 weeks. Adverse effects of imiquimod include local irritation and systemic flu-like symptoms and are prominent with the 3.75% formulation, reducing adherence.^1,2,4

Sinecatechins (brand name Veregen; 10% or 15% ointment) is an active ingredient in green tea and has reported antioxidant, antiviral, and antitumor properties. It is applied 3 times daily for up to 16 weeks.^2,4 Local reactions may occur and, rarely, severe reactions such as vulvovaginitis and pelvic pain, have been reported in women.^2,4

In-office treatment options include cryotherapy, trichloroacetic acid (TCA), intralesional immunotherapy, laser therapy, phototherapy, and surgical options.² Liquid nitrogen is cost-effective, efficacious, and safe for use in pregnancy; it is used in 2 to 3 freeze/thaw cycles per cryotherapy session to induce cellular damage.^1,2 Its disadvantages include adverse effects, such as blistering, ulceration, dyspigmentation, and scarring. In addition, subclinical lesions in adjacent skin are not addressed during treatment.²

TCA is a caustic agent applied in the office once weekly or every 2 to 3 weeks for a maximum of 3 to 4 months, with similar benefits to cryotherapy in terms of ease of application and safety in pregnancy. There is the risk of blistering and ulceration in treated lesions as well as in inadvertently treated adjacent skin.¹

Intralesional immunotherapy with Candida antigen (brand name Candin) is used in 3 sessions 4 to 6 weeks apart and is safe, with minimal adverse effects.²

Laser therapy treatment options include carbon dioxide laser therapy and ND:YAG laser. Their use is limited, however, by availability and cost.^1,2

CA may be removed surgically via shave excision, scissor excision, curettage, and electrosurgery. These procedures can be painful, however, requiring local anesthesia and having a prolonged healing course.^1,2

CA recurrence

CA unfortunately has a high rate of recurrence despite treatment, and patients require extensive counseling. Patients should be screened for other sexually transmitted infections and advised to notify their sexual partners. If followed properly, safe sexual practices, including condom use and limiting sexual partners, may prevent further transmission.¹ The quadrivalent HPV vaccine (effective for the prevention of infection with HPV genotypes 6, 11, 16, and 18 in unexposed individuals) is ineffective in treating patients with pre-existing CA but can protect against the acquisition of other HPV genotypes included in the vaccine.^1,5

Arriving at the diagnosis

Acrochordons are a common skin finding in the groin, but the onset is more gradual and the individual lesions tend to be more pedunculated. Molluscum is also on the differential and can affect the genitalia. Molluscum lesions have a characteristic central dimple or dell, which is absent in CA.

CASE Treatment course

The patient was treated with successive sessions of cryotherapy in combination with a course of topical imiquimod followed by several injections with Candida antigen, with persistence of some lesions as well as recurrence.