OBG Management

In North America, women experience menopause (the permanent cessation of menstruation due to loss of ovarian activity) at a median age of 51 years. They may experience symptoms of perimenopause, or the menopause transition, for several years before menstruation ceases. Menopausal symptoms include vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes, and vaginal symptoms, such as vaginal dryness and pain during intercourse.¹

Women may have questions about treating menopausal symptoms, maintaining their health, and preventing such age-related diseases as osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. The decision to treat menopausal symptoms is challenging for women as well as their clinicians given that recommendations have changed over the past few years.

A free app with multiple features. The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) has developed a no-cost mobile health application called MenoPro for menopausal symptom management based on the organization’s 2017 recommendations.² The app has 2 modes: one for clinicians and one for women/patients to support shared decision making.

For clinicians, the app helps identify which patients with menopausal symptoms are candidates for pharmacologic treatment and the options for optimal therapy. The app also can be used to calculate a 10-year cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke) risk assessment. In addition, it contains links to a breast cancer risk assessment as well as an osteoporosis/bone fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX model calculator). Finally, MenoPro includes NAMS’s educational materials and information pages on lifestyle modifications to reduce hot flushes, contraindications and cautions to hormone therapy, pros and cons of hormonal versus nonhormonal options, a comparison of oral (pills) and transdermal (patches, gels, sprays) therapies, treatment options for vaginal dryness and pain with sexual activities, and direct links to tables with the various formulations and doses of medications.

The TABLE details the features of the MenoPro app based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³ I hope that the app described here will assist you in caring for women in the menopausal transition.

In North America, women experience menopause (the permanent cessation of menstruation due to loss of ovarian activity) at a median age of 51 years. They may experience symptoms of perimenopause, or the menopause transition, for several years before menstruation ceases. Menopausal symptoms include vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes, and vaginal symptoms, such as vaginal dryness and pain during intercourse.¹

Women may have questions about treating menopausal symptoms, maintaining their health, and preventing such age-related diseases as osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. The decision to treat menopausal symptoms is challenging for women as well as their clinicians given that recommendations have changed over the past few years.

A free app with multiple features. The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) has developed a no-cost mobile health application called MenoPro for menopausal symptom management based on the organization’s 2017 recommendations.² The app has 2 modes: one for clinicians and one for women/patients to support shared decision making.

For clinicians, the app helps identify which patients with menopausal symptoms are candidates for pharmacologic treatment and the options for optimal therapy. The app also can be used to calculate a 10-year cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke) risk assessment. In addition, it contains links to a breast cancer risk assessment as well as an osteoporosis/bone fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX model calculator). Finally, MenoPro includes NAMS’s educational materials and information pages on lifestyle modifications to reduce hot flushes, contraindications and cautions to hormone therapy, pros and cons of hormonal versus nonhormonal options, a comparison of oral (pills) and transdermal (patches, gels, sprays) therapies, treatment options for vaginal dryness and pain with sexual activities, and direct links to tables with the various formulations and doses of medications.

The TABLE details the features of the MenoPro app based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³ I hope that the app described here will assist you in caring for women in the menopausal transition.

In North America, women experience menopause (the permanent cessation of menstruation due to loss of ovarian activity) at a median age of 51 years. They may experience symptoms of perimenopause, or the menopause transition, for several years before menstruation ceases. Menopausal symptoms include vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes, and vaginal symptoms, such as vaginal dryness and pain during intercourse.¹

Women may have questions about treating menopausal symptoms, maintaining their health, and preventing such age-related diseases as osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. The decision to treat menopausal symptoms is challenging for women as well as their clinicians given that recommendations have changed over the past few years.

A free app with multiple features. The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) has developed a no-cost mobile health application called MenoPro for menopausal symptom management based on the organization’s 2017 recommendations.² The app has 2 modes: one for clinicians and one for women/patients to support shared decision making.

For clinicians, the app helps identify which patients with menopausal symptoms are candidates for pharmacologic treatment and the options for optimal therapy. The app also can be used to calculate a 10-year cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke) risk assessment. In addition, it contains links to a breast cancer risk assessment as well as an osteoporosis/bone fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX model calculator). Finally, MenoPro includes NAMS’s educational materials and information pages on lifestyle modifications to reduce hot flushes, contraindications and cautions to hormone therapy, pros and cons of hormonal versus nonhormonal options, a comparison of oral (pills) and transdermal (patches, gels, sprays) therapies, treatment options for vaginal dryness and pain with sexual activities, and direct links to tables with the various formulations and doses of medications.

The TABLE details the features of the MenoPro app based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³ I hope that the app described here will assist you in caring for women in the menopausal transition.

About 10% of all reproductive-aged women and 35% to 50% of women with pelvic pain and infertility are affected by endometriosis.^1,2 The disease typically involves the reproductive tract organs, anterior and posterior cul-de-sacs, and uterosacral ligaments. However, disease outside of the reproductive tract occurs frequently and has been found on all organs except the spleen.³

The bowel is the most common site for extragenital endometriosis, affected in an estimated 3.8% to 37% of patients with known endometriosis.^4-7 Implants may be superficial, involving the bowel serosa and subserosa (FIGURE 1), or they can manifest as deeply infiltrating lesions involving the muscularis and mucosa (FIGURE 2). The rectosigmoid colon is the most common location for bowel endometriosis, followed by the rectum, ileum, appendix, and cecum^4,8 (FIGURES 3, 4, and 5). Case reports also have described endometrial implants on the stomach and transverse colon.⁹ Although isolated bowel involvement has been recognized, most patients with bowel endometriosis have concurrent disease elsewhere.^2,4 

Historically, segmental resection was performed regardless of the anatomical location of the lesion.¹⁰ Even today, many surgeons continue to routinely perform segmental bowel resection as a first-line surgical approach.¹¹ Unnecessary segmental resection, however, places patients at risk for short- and long-term postoperative morbidity, including the possibility of permanent ostomy. Modern surgical techniques, such as shaving excision and disc resection, have been performed to successfully treat bowel endometriosis with excellent long-term outcomes and fewer complications when compared with traditional segmental resection.^2,12-16

In this article, we focus on the clinical indications and surgical techniques for video-laparoscopic management, but first we describe the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and diagnosis of bowel endometriosis.

Pathophysiology of bowel endometriosis

The pathogenesis of endometriosis remains unknown, as no single mechanism explains all clinical cases of the disease. The most popular proposed theory describes retrograde menstruation through the fallopian tubes.¹⁷ Once inside the peritoneal cavity, endometrial cells attach to and invade healthy peritoneum, establishing a blood supply necessary for growth and survival.

In the case of bowel endometriosis, deposition of effluxed endometrial cells may lead to an inflammatory response that increases the risk of adhesion formation, leading to potential cul-de-sac obliteration. Lesions may originate as Allen-Masters peritoneal defects, developing into deeply infiltrative rectovaginal septum lesions. The anatomical shelter theory contributes to lesions within the pelvis, with the rectosigmoid colon blocking the cephalad flow of effluxed menstrual blood from the pelvis, thus leading to a preponderance of lesions in the pelvis and along the rectosigmoid colon.²

Continue to: Clinical presentation and diagnosis...

Clinical presentation and diagnosis

Women presenting with endometriosis of the bowel are typically of reproductive age and commonly report symptoms of dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and dyschezia. Some women also experience catamenial diarrhea, constipation, hematochezia, and bloating.² The differential diagnosis of these symptoms is broad and includes irritable bowel disease, ischemic colitis, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticulitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, and malignancy.

Because of its nonspecific symptoms, bowel endometriosis is often misdiagnosed and the disease goes untreated for years.¹⁸ Therefore, it is imperative that clinicians maintain a high index of suspicion when evaluating reproductive-aged women with gastrointestinal symptoms and pelvic pain.

Physical examination can be helpful in making the diagnosis of endometriosis. During bimanual examination, findings such as a fixed, tender, or retroverted uterus, uterosacral ligament nodularity, or an enlarged adnexal mass representing an ovarian endometrioma may be appreciated. Rectovaginal exam can identify areas of tenderness and nodularity along the rectovaginal septum. Speculum exam may reveal a laterally displaced cervix or blue powder-burn lesions along the cervix or posterior fornix.¹⁹ Rarely, endometriosis is found on the perineum within an episiotomy scar.²⁰

Imaging studies can be used in conjunction with physical examination findings to aid in the diagnosis of endometriosis. Images also guide preoperative planning by characterizing lesions based on their size, location, and depth of invasion. Hudelist and colleagues found transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) to have an overall sensitivity of 71% to 98% and a specificity of 92% to 100%.²¹ However, it was noted that the accuracy of the diagnosis was directly related to the experience of the sonographer, and lesions above the sigmoid colon were generally unable to be diagnosed. Other imaging modalities that have been reported to have high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing bowel endometriosis include rectal water contrast TVUS,^22,23 rectal endoscopic sonography,²² magnetic resonance imaging,²² and barium enema.²⁴

Medical management

Medical therapy for patients with endometriosis is utilized with the goal of suppressing ovulation, lowering circulating hormone levels, and inducing endometrial atrophy. Medications commonly employed include gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, anabolic steriods such as danazol, combined oral contraceptive pills, progestins, and aromatase inhibitors.

Continue to: To date, no optimal hormonal regimen...

To date, no optimal hormonal regimen has been established for the treatment of bowel endometriosis. Vercellini and colleagues demonstrated that progestins with and without low-dose estrogen improved symptoms of dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia.²⁵ Ferrero and colleagues reported that 2.5 mg of norethindrone daily resulted in 53% of women with colorectal endometriosis reporting improved gastrointestinal symptoms.²⁶ However, by 12 months of follow-up, 33% of these patients had elected to undergo surgical management.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, such as leuprolide acetate, also can be used to mitigate symptoms of bowel endometriosis or to decrease disease burden at the time of surgery, and they can be used with add-back norethindrone acetate. The use of these medications is limited by adverse effects, such as vasomotor symptoms and decreased bone mineral density when used for longer than 6 months.²

Medical therapy is commonly used for patients with mild to moderate symptoms and in those who are poor surgical candidates or decline surgical intervention. Medical therapy is especially useful when employed postoperatively to suppress the regrowth of microscopic ectopic endometrial tissue.

Patients must be counseled, however, that even with medical management, they may still require surgery in the future to control their symptoms and/or to preserve organ function.²

Surgical management

Surgical treatment for bowel endometriosis depends on the disease location, the size and depth of the lesion, the presence or absence of stricture, and the surgeon’s level of expertise.^2,12,27-30

In our group, we advocate for video-laparoscopy, with or without robotic as sistance. Minimally invasive surgery offers reduced blood loss, shorter recovery time, and fewer postoperative complications compared with laparotomy.^{2,16,27,31-33} The conversion rate to laparotomy has been reported to be about 3% when performed by an experienced surgeon.¹²

Darai and colleagues conducted a randomized trial of 52 patients undergoing surgery for colorectal endometriosis via either laparoscopic or open colon resection.³³ Blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopy group (1.6 vs 2.7 mg/L, P <.05). No difference was noted in long-term outcomes. In a retrospective study of 436 cases, Ruffo and colleagues showed that those who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection had higher postoperative pregnancy rates compared with those who had laparotomy (57.6% vs 23.1%, P <.035).³²

The goal of surgical management of bowel endometriosis is to remove as many of the endometriotic lesions as possible while minimizing short- and long-term complications. Three surgical approaches have been described: shaving excision, disc resection, and segmental resection.²

Some surgeons prefer traditional segmental resection of the bowel regardless of the anatomical site, citing reduced disease recurrence with this approach; however, traditional segmental resection confers increased risk of complications. Increasingly, in an effort to reduce morbidity, more surgeons are advocating for the less aggressive methods of shaving excision and disc resection.

Aggressive resection at the level of the low rectum requires extensive surgical dissection of the retrorectal space, with the potential for inadvertent injury to surrounding neurovascular structures, such as the pelvic splanchnic nerves and superior and inferior hypogastric plexus.²⁹ Injury to these structures can lead to significant complications, including bowel stenosis, fistula formation, constipation, and urinary retention. Complete resection of other areas, such as the small bowel, do not carry the same risks and may have more significant benefit to the patient than less aggressive techniques.

Our group recommends carefully balancing the risks and benefits of aggressive surgical treatment for each individual and treating the patient with the appropriate technique. Regardless of technique, surgical treatment of bowel endometriosis can lead to long-term improvements in pain and infertility.^29,30,34,35

Continue to: Shaving excision...

Shaving excision

The most conservative approach to resection of bowel endometriosis is shaving excision; this involves removing endometriotic tissue layer-by-layer until healthy, underlying tissue is encountered.² With bowel endometriosis, the goal of shaving excision is to remove as much of the diseased tissue as possible while leaving behind the mucosal layer and a portion of the muscularis.^{2,15,16,36-38} This is the most conservative of the 3 surgical techniques and is associated with the lowest complication rate.^{2,14,15,36,37}

Our group reported on 185 women who underwent shaving excision for bowel endometriosis. At the time of surgery, 80 women had complete obliteration of the cul-de-sac (FIGURE 6). Of the study patients, 174 patients were available for follow-up, with 93% reporting moderate to complete pain relief.¹⁵

In a retrospective analysis of 3,298 surgeries for rectovaginal endometriosis in which shaving excision was used on all but 1% of patients, Donnez and colleagues reported a very low complication rate, with 1 case of rectal perforation, 1 case of fecal peritonitis, and 3 cases of ureteral injury.³⁹

Roman and colleagues described the use of shaving excision for rectal endometriosis using plasma energy (n = 54) and laparoscopic scissors (n = 68).⁴⁰ Only 4% of patients reported experiencing symptom recurrence, and the pregnancy rate was 65.4%, with 59% of those patients spontaneously conceiving. Two cases of rectal fistula were noted.

Disc resection

Laparoscopic disc excision has been described in the literature since the 1980s, and the technique involves the full-thickness removal of the diseased portion of the bowel, followed by closure of the remaining defect.^{2,12-14,28,29,31,41-45} To be appropriate for this technique, a lesion should involve only a portion of the bowel wall and, preferably, less than one-half of the bowel circumference.^2,42 Disc excision results in excellent outcomes with fewer postoperative complications than segmental resection, but with more complications when compared to shaving excision.^{2,12,13,29,45,46}

We reported on a series of 141 women with bowel endometriosis who underwent disc excision.² At 1-month follow-up, 87% of patients experienced an improvement in their symptoms. No cases required conversion to laparotomy or were complicated by rectovaginal fistula formation, ureteral injury, bowel perforation, or pelvic abscess.²

Continue to: Segmental resection...

Segmental resection

The most aggressive surgical approach, segmental resection involves complete removal of a diseased portion of bowel, followed by side-to-side or end-to-end reanastomosis of the adjacent segments.² For this procedure, a multidisciplinary approach is recommended, with involvement of a colorectal surgeon or gynecologic oncologist trained in performing bowel resections. Segmental resection is indicated for lesions that are larger than 3 cm, circumferential, obstructive, or multifocal.

Given the higher complication rate associated with this procedure and the good outcomes associated with less invasive techniques, we avoid segmental resection whenever possible, especially for lesions near the anal verge.²

Complications associated with surgical approach

In 2005, our group reported on a cohort of 178 women who underwent laparoscopic treatment of deeply infiltrative bowel endometriosis with shaving excision (n = 93), disc excision (n = 38), and segmental resection (n = 47).³⁴ The major complication rate was significantly higher for those undergoing segmental resection (12.5%, P <.001); only 7.7% of those who underwent disc resection experienced a major complication; and none were observed in the group treated with shaving excision.

In 2011, De Cicco and colleagues conducted a systematic review of 1,889 patients who underwent segmental bowel resection.³⁵ The major complication rate was 11%, with a leakage rate of 2.7%, fistula rate of 1.8%, major obstruction rate of 2.7%, and hemorrhage rate of 2.5%. Many of these complications, however, occurred in patients who had low rectal resections.

Regardless of surgical approach, the complication rate is related to the surgeon’s ability to preserve the superior and inferior hypogastric plexuses and the sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve bundles (FIGURE 7). Nerve-sparing techniques should be used to decrease the incidence of postoperative bowel, bladder, and sexual function complications.² 

Our group’s preferences

In our practice, we emphasize that the choice of surgical technique depends on the location, size, and depth of the lesion, as well as the extent of bowel wall circumferential invasion.²

We categorize lesions by their anatomic location: those above the sigmoid colon, on the sigmoid colon, on the rectosigmoid colon, and on the rectum. For lesions above the sigmoid colon, segmental or disc resection is appropriate.² We recommend segmental resection for multifocal lesions, lesions larger than 3 cm, or for lesions involving more than one-third of the bowel lumen.^37,44,45,47 Disc resection is appropriate for lesions smaller than 3 cm even if the bowel lumen is involved.^44,45,48 If endometriosis is encountered in any location along the bowel, appendectomy can be performed even without visible disease, due to a high incidence of occult disease of the appendix.^49,50

When lesions involve the sigmoid colon, we prefer utilizing shaving excision when possible to limit dissection of the retrorectal space and pelvic sidewall nerves.² Segmental resection at or below the sigmoid colon has been associated with postoperative surgical site leakage⁵¹ and long-term bowel and bladder dysfunction with risk of permanent colostomy.^52,53 For lesions smaller than 3 cm or involving less than one-third of the bowel lumen, disc resection can be performed. Segmental resection is required if multifocal disease or obstruction are present, if lesions are larger than 3 cm, or if more than one-third of the bowel lumen is involved.

For lesions along the rectosigmoid colon, we prefer utilizing shaving excision when possible.² Disc excision can be performed utilizing a transanal approach, being mindful to minimize dissection of the retroperitoneal space and pelvic sidewall nerves.⁴⁸ Segmental resection is avoided even with lesions larger than 3 cm, unless prior surgery has failed. Approaches for segmental resection can utilize laparoscopy or the natural orifices of the rectum or vagina.^31,51

For lesions on the rectum, we strongly advise shaving excision.² Evidence fails to show that the benefits of segmental resection outweigh the risks when compared to conservative techniques at the rectum.^30,39,54 There is evidence indicating that aggressive surgery 5 to 8 cm from the anal verge is predictive of postoperative complications.⁵⁵ In our group, we use shaving excision to remove as much disease as possible without compromising the integrity of the bowel wall or surrounding neurovascular structures. We err on the side of caution, leaving some of the disease on the rectum to avoid rectal perforation, and plan for postoperative hormonal suppression in these patients.

For patients desiring fertility, successful pregnancy is often achieved using the shaving technique.⁴¹

About 10% of all reproductive-aged women and 35% to 50% of women with pelvic pain and infertility are affected by endometriosis.^1,2 The disease typically involves the reproductive tract organs, anterior and posterior cul-de-sacs, and uterosacral ligaments. However, disease outside of the reproductive tract occurs frequently and has been found on all organs except the spleen.³

The bowel is the most common site for extragenital endometriosis, affected in an estimated 3.8% to 37% of patients with known endometriosis.^4-7 Implants may be superficial, involving the bowel serosa and subserosa (FIGURE 1), or they can manifest as deeply infiltrating lesions involving the muscularis and mucosa (FIGURE 2). The rectosigmoid colon is the most common location for bowel endometriosis, followed by the rectum, ileum, appendix, and cecum^4,8 (FIGURES 3, 4, and 5). Case reports also have described endometrial implants on the stomach and transverse colon.⁹ Although isolated bowel involvement has been recognized, most patients with bowel endometriosis have concurrent disease elsewhere.^2,4 

Historically, segmental resection was performed regardless of the anatomical location of the lesion.¹⁰ Even today, many surgeons continue to routinely perform segmental bowel resection as a first-line surgical approach.¹¹ Unnecessary segmental resection, however, places patients at risk for short- and long-term postoperative morbidity, including the possibility of permanent ostomy. Modern surgical techniques, such as shaving excision and disc resection, have been performed to successfully treat bowel endometriosis with excellent long-term outcomes and fewer complications when compared with traditional segmental resection.^2,12-16

In this article, we focus on the clinical indications and surgical techniques for video-laparoscopic management, but first we describe the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and diagnosis of bowel endometriosis.

Pathophysiology of bowel endometriosis

The pathogenesis of endometriosis remains unknown, as no single mechanism explains all clinical cases of the disease. The most popular proposed theory describes retrograde menstruation through the fallopian tubes.¹⁷ Once inside the peritoneal cavity, endometrial cells attach to and invade healthy peritoneum, establishing a blood supply necessary for growth and survival.

In the case of bowel endometriosis, deposition of effluxed endometrial cells may lead to an inflammatory response that increases the risk of adhesion formation, leading to potential cul-de-sac obliteration. Lesions may originate as Allen-Masters peritoneal defects, developing into deeply infiltrative rectovaginal septum lesions. The anatomical shelter theory contributes to lesions within the pelvis, with the rectosigmoid colon blocking the cephalad flow of effluxed menstrual blood from the pelvis, thus leading to a preponderance of lesions in the pelvis and along the rectosigmoid colon.²

Continue to: Clinical presentation and diagnosis...

Clinical presentation and diagnosis

Women presenting with endometriosis of the bowel are typically of reproductive age and commonly report symptoms of dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and dyschezia. Some women also experience catamenial diarrhea, constipation, hematochezia, and bloating.² The differential diagnosis of these symptoms is broad and includes irritable bowel disease, ischemic colitis, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticulitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, and malignancy.

Because of its nonspecific symptoms, bowel endometriosis is often misdiagnosed and the disease goes untreated for years.¹⁸ Therefore, it is imperative that clinicians maintain a high index of suspicion when evaluating reproductive-aged women with gastrointestinal symptoms and pelvic pain.

Physical examination can be helpful in making the diagnosis of endometriosis. During bimanual examination, findings such as a fixed, tender, or retroverted uterus, uterosacral ligament nodularity, or an enlarged adnexal mass representing an ovarian endometrioma may be appreciated. Rectovaginal exam can identify areas of tenderness and nodularity along the rectovaginal septum. Speculum exam may reveal a laterally displaced cervix or blue powder-burn lesions along the cervix or posterior fornix.¹⁹ Rarely, endometriosis is found on the perineum within an episiotomy scar.²⁰

Imaging studies can be used in conjunction with physical examination findings to aid in the diagnosis of endometriosis. Images also guide preoperative planning by characterizing lesions based on their size, location, and depth of invasion. Hudelist and colleagues found transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) to have an overall sensitivity of 71% to 98% and a specificity of 92% to 100%.²¹ However, it was noted that the accuracy of the diagnosis was directly related to the experience of the sonographer, and lesions above the sigmoid colon were generally unable to be diagnosed. Other imaging modalities that have been reported to have high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing bowel endometriosis include rectal water contrast TVUS,^22,23 rectal endoscopic sonography,²² magnetic resonance imaging,²² and barium enema.²⁴

Medical management

Medical therapy for patients with endometriosis is utilized with the goal of suppressing ovulation, lowering circulating hormone levels, and inducing endometrial atrophy. Medications commonly employed include gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, anabolic steriods such as danazol, combined oral contraceptive pills, progestins, and aromatase inhibitors.

Continue to: To date, no optimal hormonal regimen...

To date, no optimal hormonal regimen has been established for the treatment of bowel endometriosis. Vercellini and colleagues demonstrated that progestins with and without low-dose estrogen improved symptoms of dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia.²⁵ Ferrero and colleagues reported that 2.5 mg of norethindrone daily resulted in 53% of women with colorectal endometriosis reporting improved gastrointestinal symptoms.²⁶ However, by 12 months of follow-up, 33% of these patients had elected to undergo surgical management.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, such as leuprolide acetate, also can be used to mitigate symptoms of bowel endometriosis or to decrease disease burden at the time of surgery, and they can be used with add-back norethindrone acetate. The use of these medications is limited by adverse effects, such as vasomotor symptoms and decreased bone mineral density when used for longer than 6 months.²

Medical therapy is commonly used for patients with mild to moderate symptoms and in those who are poor surgical candidates or decline surgical intervention. Medical therapy is especially useful when employed postoperatively to suppress the regrowth of microscopic ectopic endometrial tissue.

Patients must be counseled, however, that even with medical management, they may still require surgery in the future to control their symptoms and/or to preserve organ function.²

Surgical management

Surgical treatment for bowel endometriosis depends on the disease location, the size and depth of the lesion, the presence or absence of stricture, and the surgeon’s level of expertise.^2,12,27-30

In our group, we advocate for video-laparoscopy, with or without robotic as sistance. Minimally invasive surgery offers reduced blood loss, shorter recovery time, and fewer postoperative complications compared with laparotomy.^{2,16,27,31-33} The conversion rate to laparotomy has been reported to be about 3% when performed by an experienced surgeon.¹²

Darai and colleagues conducted a randomized trial of 52 patients undergoing surgery for colorectal endometriosis via either laparoscopic or open colon resection.³³ Blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopy group (1.6 vs 2.7 mg/L, P <.05). No difference was noted in long-term outcomes. In a retrospective study of 436 cases, Ruffo and colleagues showed that those who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection had higher postoperative pregnancy rates compared with those who had laparotomy (57.6% vs 23.1%, P <.035).³²

The goal of surgical management of bowel endometriosis is to remove as many of the endometriotic lesions as possible while minimizing short- and long-term complications. Three surgical approaches have been described: shaving excision, disc resection, and segmental resection.²

Some surgeons prefer traditional segmental resection of the bowel regardless of the anatomical site, citing reduced disease recurrence with this approach; however, traditional segmental resection confers increased risk of complications. Increasingly, in an effort to reduce morbidity, more surgeons are advocating for the less aggressive methods of shaving excision and disc resection.

Aggressive resection at the level of the low rectum requires extensive surgical dissection of the retrorectal space, with the potential for inadvertent injury to surrounding neurovascular structures, such as the pelvic splanchnic nerves and superior and inferior hypogastric plexus.²⁹ Injury to these structures can lead to significant complications, including bowel stenosis, fistula formation, constipation, and urinary retention. Complete resection of other areas, such as the small bowel, do not carry the same risks and may have more significant benefit to the patient than less aggressive techniques.

Our group recommends carefully balancing the risks and benefits of aggressive surgical treatment for each individual and treating the patient with the appropriate technique. Regardless of technique, surgical treatment of bowel endometriosis can lead to long-term improvements in pain and infertility.^29,30,34,35

Continue to: Shaving excision...

Shaving excision

The most conservative approach to resection of bowel endometriosis is shaving excision; this involves removing endometriotic tissue layer-by-layer until healthy, underlying tissue is encountered.² With bowel endometriosis, the goal of shaving excision is to remove as much of the diseased tissue as possible while leaving behind the mucosal layer and a portion of the muscularis.^{2,15,16,36-38} This is the most conservative of the 3 surgical techniques and is associated with the lowest complication rate.^{2,14,15,36,37}

Our group reported on 185 women who underwent shaving excision for bowel endometriosis. At the time of surgery, 80 women had complete obliteration of the cul-de-sac (FIGURE 6). Of the study patients, 174 patients were available for follow-up, with 93% reporting moderate to complete pain relief.¹⁵

In a retrospective analysis of 3,298 surgeries for rectovaginal endometriosis in which shaving excision was used on all but 1% of patients, Donnez and colleagues reported a very low complication rate, with 1 case of rectal perforation, 1 case of fecal peritonitis, and 3 cases of ureteral injury.³⁹

Roman and colleagues described the use of shaving excision for rectal endometriosis using plasma energy (n = 54) and laparoscopic scissors (n = 68).⁴⁰ Only 4% of patients reported experiencing symptom recurrence, and the pregnancy rate was 65.4%, with 59% of those patients spontaneously conceiving. Two cases of rectal fistula were noted.

Disc resection

Laparoscopic disc excision has been described in the literature since the 1980s, and the technique involves the full-thickness removal of the diseased portion of the bowel, followed by closure of the remaining defect.^{2,12-14,28,29,31,41-45} To be appropriate for this technique, a lesion should involve only a portion of the bowel wall and, preferably, less than one-half of the bowel circumference.^2,42 Disc excision results in excellent outcomes with fewer postoperative complications than segmental resection, but with more complications when compared to shaving excision.^{2,12,13,29,45,46}

We reported on a series of 141 women with bowel endometriosis who underwent disc excision.² At 1-month follow-up, 87% of patients experienced an improvement in their symptoms. No cases required conversion to laparotomy or were complicated by rectovaginal fistula formation, ureteral injury, bowel perforation, or pelvic abscess.²

Continue to: Segmental resection...

Segmental resection

The most aggressive surgical approach, segmental resection involves complete removal of a diseased portion of bowel, followed by side-to-side or end-to-end reanastomosis of the adjacent segments.² For this procedure, a multidisciplinary approach is recommended, with involvement of a colorectal surgeon or gynecologic oncologist trained in performing bowel resections. Segmental resection is indicated for lesions that are larger than 3 cm, circumferential, obstructive, or multifocal.

Given the higher complication rate associated with this procedure and the good outcomes associated with less invasive techniques, we avoid segmental resection whenever possible, especially for lesions near the anal verge.²

Complications associated with surgical approach

In 2005, our group reported on a cohort of 178 women who underwent laparoscopic treatment of deeply infiltrative bowel endometriosis with shaving excision (n = 93), disc excision (n = 38), and segmental resection (n = 47).³⁴ The major complication rate was significantly higher for those undergoing segmental resection (12.5%, P <.001); only 7.7% of those who underwent disc resection experienced a major complication; and none were observed in the group treated with shaving excision.

In 2011, De Cicco and colleagues conducted a systematic review of 1,889 patients who underwent segmental bowel resection.³⁵ The major complication rate was 11%, with a leakage rate of 2.7%, fistula rate of 1.8%, major obstruction rate of 2.7%, and hemorrhage rate of 2.5%. Many of these complications, however, occurred in patients who had low rectal resections.

Regardless of surgical approach, the complication rate is related to the surgeon’s ability to preserve the superior and inferior hypogastric plexuses and the sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve bundles (FIGURE 7). Nerve-sparing techniques should be used to decrease the incidence of postoperative bowel, bladder, and sexual function complications.² 

Our group’s preferences

In our practice, we emphasize that the choice of surgical technique depends on the location, size, and depth of the lesion, as well as the extent of bowel wall circumferential invasion.²

We categorize lesions by their anatomic location: those above the sigmoid colon, on the sigmoid colon, on the rectosigmoid colon, and on the rectum. For lesions above the sigmoid colon, segmental or disc resection is appropriate.² We recommend segmental resection for multifocal lesions, lesions larger than 3 cm, or for lesions involving more than one-third of the bowel lumen.^37,44,45,47 Disc resection is appropriate for lesions smaller than 3 cm even if the bowel lumen is involved.^44,45,48 If endometriosis is encountered in any location along the bowel, appendectomy can be performed even without visible disease, due to a high incidence of occult disease of the appendix.^49,50

When lesions involve the sigmoid colon, we prefer utilizing shaving excision when possible to limit dissection of the retrorectal space and pelvic sidewall nerves.² Segmental resection at or below the sigmoid colon has been associated with postoperative surgical site leakage⁵¹ and long-term bowel and bladder dysfunction with risk of permanent colostomy.^52,53 For lesions smaller than 3 cm or involving less than one-third of the bowel lumen, disc resection can be performed. Segmental resection is required if multifocal disease or obstruction are present, if lesions are larger than 3 cm, or if more than one-third of the bowel lumen is involved.

For lesions along the rectosigmoid colon, we prefer utilizing shaving excision when possible.² Disc excision can be performed utilizing a transanal approach, being mindful to minimize dissection of the retroperitoneal space and pelvic sidewall nerves.⁴⁸ Segmental resection is avoided even with lesions larger than 3 cm, unless prior surgery has failed. Approaches for segmental resection can utilize laparoscopy or the natural orifices of the rectum or vagina.^31,51

For lesions on the rectum, we strongly advise shaving excision.² Evidence fails to show that the benefits of segmental resection outweigh the risks when compared to conservative techniques at the rectum.^30,39,54 There is evidence indicating that aggressive surgery 5 to 8 cm from the anal verge is predictive of postoperative complications.⁵⁵ In our group, we use shaving excision to remove as much disease as possible without compromising the integrity of the bowel wall or surrounding neurovascular structures. We err on the side of caution, leaving some of the disease on the rectum to avoid rectal perforation, and plan for postoperative hormonal suppression in these patients.

For patients desiring fertility, successful pregnancy is often achieved using the shaving technique.⁴¹

About 10% of all reproductive-aged women and 35% to 50% of women with pelvic pain and infertility are affected by endometriosis.^1,2 The disease typically involves the reproductive tract organs, anterior and posterior cul-de-sacs, and uterosacral ligaments. However, disease outside of the reproductive tract occurs frequently and has been found on all organs except the spleen.³

The bowel is the most common site for extragenital endometriosis, affected in an estimated 3.8% to 37% of patients with known endometriosis.^4-7 Implants may be superficial, involving the bowel serosa and subserosa (FIGURE 1), or they can manifest as deeply infiltrating lesions involving the muscularis and mucosa (FIGURE 2). The rectosigmoid colon is the most common location for bowel endometriosis, followed by the rectum, ileum, appendix, and cecum^4,8 (FIGURES 3, 4, and 5). Case reports also have described endometrial implants on the stomach and transverse colon.⁹ Although isolated bowel involvement has been recognized, most patients with bowel endometriosis have concurrent disease elsewhere.^2,4 

Historically, segmental resection was performed regardless of the anatomical location of the lesion.¹⁰ Even today, many surgeons continue to routinely perform segmental bowel resection as a first-line surgical approach.¹¹ Unnecessary segmental resection, however, places patients at risk for short- and long-term postoperative morbidity, including the possibility of permanent ostomy. Modern surgical techniques, such as shaving excision and disc resection, have been performed to successfully treat bowel endometriosis with excellent long-term outcomes and fewer complications when compared with traditional segmental resection.^2,12-16

In this article, we focus on the clinical indications and surgical techniques for video-laparoscopic management, but first we describe the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and diagnosis of bowel endometriosis.

Pathophysiology of bowel endometriosis

The pathogenesis of endometriosis remains unknown, as no single mechanism explains all clinical cases of the disease. The most popular proposed theory describes retrograde menstruation through the fallopian tubes.¹⁷ Once inside the peritoneal cavity, endometrial cells attach to and invade healthy peritoneum, establishing a blood supply necessary for growth and survival.

In the case of bowel endometriosis, deposition of effluxed endometrial cells may lead to an inflammatory response that increases the risk of adhesion formation, leading to potential cul-de-sac obliteration. Lesions may originate as Allen-Masters peritoneal defects, developing into deeply infiltrative rectovaginal septum lesions. The anatomical shelter theory contributes to lesions within the pelvis, with the rectosigmoid colon blocking the cephalad flow of effluxed menstrual blood from the pelvis, thus leading to a preponderance of lesions in the pelvis and along the rectosigmoid colon.²

Continue to: Clinical presentation and diagnosis...

Clinical presentation and diagnosis

Women presenting with endometriosis of the bowel are typically of reproductive age and commonly report symptoms of dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and dyschezia. Some women also experience catamenial diarrhea, constipation, hematochezia, and bloating.² The differential diagnosis of these symptoms is broad and includes irritable bowel disease, ischemic colitis, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticulitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, and malignancy.

Because of its nonspecific symptoms, bowel endometriosis is often misdiagnosed and the disease goes untreated for years.¹⁸ Therefore, it is imperative that clinicians maintain a high index of suspicion when evaluating reproductive-aged women with gastrointestinal symptoms and pelvic pain.

Physical examination can be helpful in making the diagnosis of endometriosis. During bimanual examination, findings such as a fixed, tender, or retroverted uterus, uterosacral ligament nodularity, or an enlarged adnexal mass representing an ovarian endometrioma may be appreciated. Rectovaginal exam can identify areas of tenderness and nodularity along the rectovaginal septum. Speculum exam may reveal a laterally displaced cervix or blue powder-burn lesions along the cervix or posterior fornix.¹⁹ Rarely, endometriosis is found on the perineum within an episiotomy scar.²⁰

Imaging studies can be used in conjunction with physical examination findings to aid in the diagnosis of endometriosis. Images also guide preoperative planning by characterizing lesions based on their size, location, and depth of invasion. Hudelist and colleagues found transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) to have an overall sensitivity of 71% to 98% and a specificity of 92% to 100%.²¹ However, it was noted that the accuracy of the diagnosis was directly related to the experience of the sonographer, and lesions above the sigmoid colon were generally unable to be diagnosed. Other imaging modalities that have been reported to have high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing bowel endometriosis include rectal water contrast TVUS,^22,23 rectal endoscopic sonography,²² magnetic resonance imaging,²² and barium enema.²⁴

Medical management

Medical therapy for patients with endometriosis is utilized with the goal of suppressing ovulation, lowering circulating hormone levels, and inducing endometrial atrophy. Medications commonly employed include gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, anabolic steriods such as danazol, combined oral contraceptive pills, progestins, and aromatase inhibitors.

Continue to: To date, no optimal hormonal regimen...

To date, no optimal hormonal regimen has been established for the treatment of bowel endometriosis. Vercellini and colleagues demonstrated that progestins with and without low-dose estrogen improved symptoms of dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia.²⁵ Ferrero and colleagues reported that 2.5 mg of norethindrone daily resulted in 53% of women with colorectal endometriosis reporting improved gastrointestinal symptoms.²⁶ However, by 12 months of follow-up, 33% of these patients had elected to undergo surgical management.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, such as leuprolide acetate, also can be used to mitigate symptoms of bowel endometriosis or to decrease disease burden at the time of surgery, and they can be used with add-back norethindrone acetate. The use of these medications is limited by adverse effects, such as vasomotor symptoms and decreased bone mineral density when used for longer than 6 months.²

Medical therapy is commonly used for patients with mild to moderate symptoms and in those who are poor surgical candidates or decline surgical intervention. Medical therapy is especially useful when employed postoperatively to suppress the regrowth of microscopic ectopic endometrial tissue.

Patients must be counseled, however, that even with medical management, they may still require surgery in the future to control their symptoms and/or to preserve organ function.²

Surgical management

Surgical treatment for bowel endometriosis depends on the disease location, the size and depth of the lesion, the presence or absence of stricture, and the surgeon’s level of expertise.^2,12,27-30

In our group, we advocate for video-laparoscopy, with or without robotic as sistance. Minimally invasive surgery offers reduced blood loss, shorter recovery time, and fewer postoperative complications compared with laparotomy.^{2,16,27,31-33} The conversion rate to laparotomy has been reported to be about 3% when performed by an experienced surgeon.¹²

Darai and colleagues conducted a randomized trial of 52 patients undergoing surgery for colorectal endometriosis via either laparoscopic or open colon resection.³³ Blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopy group (1.6 vs 2.7 mg/L, P <.05). No difference was noted in long-term outcomes. In a retrospective study of 436 cases, Ruffo and colleagues showed that those who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection had higher postoperative pregnancy rates compared with those who had laparotomy (57.6% vs 23.1%, P <.035).³²

The goal of surgical management of bowel endometriosis is to remove as many of the endometriotic lesions as possible while minimizing short- and long-term complications. Three surgical approaches have been described: shaving excision, disc resection, and segmental resection.²

Some surgeons prefer traditional segmental resection of the bowel regardless of the anatomical site, citing reduced disease recurrence with this approach; however, traditional segmental resection confers increased risk of complications. Increasingly, in an effort to reduce morbidity, more surgeons are advocating for the less aggressive methods of shaving excision and disc resection.

Aggressive resection at the level of the low rectum requires extensive surgical dissection of the retrorectal space, with the potential for inadvertent injury to surrounding neurovascular structures, such as the pelvic splanchnic nerves and superior and inferior hypogastric plexus.²⁹ Injury to these structures can lead to significant complications, including bowel stenosis, fistula formation, constipation, and urinary retention. Complete resection of other areas, such as the small bowel, do not carry the same risks and may have more significant benefit to the patient than less aggressive techniques.

Our group recommends carefully balancing the risks and benefits of aggressive surgical treatment for each individual and treating the patient with the appropriate technique. Regardless of technique, surgical treatment of bowel endometriosis can lead to long-term improvements in pain and infertility.^29,30,34,35

Continue to: Shaving excision...

Shaving excision

The most conservative approach to resection of bowel endometriosis is shaving excision; this involves removing endometriotic tissue layer-by-layer until healthy, underlying tissue is encountered.² With bowel endometriosis, the goal of shaving excision is to remove as much of the diseased tissue as possible while leaving behind the mucosal layer and a portion of the muscularis.^{2,15,16,36-38} This is the most conservative of the 3 surgical techniques and is associated with the lowest complication rate.^{2,14,15,36,37}

Our group reported on 185 women who underwent shaving excision for bowel endometriosis. At the time of surgery, 80 women had complete obliteration of the cul-de-sac (FIGURE 6). Of the study patients, 174 patients were available for follow-up, with 93% reporting moderate to complete pain relief.¹⁵

In a retrospective analysis of 3,298 surgeries for rectovaginal endometriosis in which shaving excision was used on all but 1% of patients, Donnez and colleagues reported a very low complication rate, with 1 case of rectal perforation, 1 case of fecal peritonitis, and 3 cases of ureteral injury.³⁹

Roman and colleagues described the use of shaving excision for rectal endometriosis using plasma energy (n = 54) and laparoscopic scissors (n = 68).⁴⁰ Only 4% of patients reported experiencing symptom recurrence, and the pregnancy rate was 65.4%, with 59% of those patients spontaneously conceiving. Two cases of rectal fistula were noted.

Disc resection

Laparoscopic disc excision has been described in the literature since the 1980s, and the technique involves the full-thickness removal of the diseased portion of the bowel, followed by closure of the remaining defect.^{2,12-14,28,29,31,41-45} To be appropriate for this technique, a lesion should involve only a portion of the bowel wall and, preferably, less than one-half of the bowel circumference.^2,42 Disc excision results in excellent outcomes with fewer postoperative complications than segmental resection, but with more complications when compared to shaving excision.^{2,12,13,29,45,46}

We reported on a series of 141 women with bowel endometriosis who underwent disc excision.² At 1-month follow-up, 87% of patients experienced an improvement in their symptoms. No cases required conversion to laparotomy or were complicated by rectovaginal fistula formation, ureteral injury, bowel perforation, or pelvic abscess.²

Continue to: Segmental resection...

Segmental resection

The most aggressive surgical approach, segmental resection involves complete removal of a diseased portion of bowel, followed by side-to-side or end-to-end reanastomosis of the adjacent segments.² For this procedure, a multidisciplinary approach is recommended, with involvement of a colorectal surgeon or gynecologic oncologist trained in performing bowel resections. Segmental resection is indicated for lesions that are larger than 3 cm, circumferential, obstructive, or multifocal.

Given the higher complication rate associated with this procedure and the good outcomes associated with less invasive techniques, we avoid segmental resection whenever possible, especially for lesions near the anal verge.²

Complications associated with surgical approach

In 2005, our group reported on a cohort of 178 women who underwent laparoscopic treatment of deeply infiltrative bowel endometriosis with shaving excision (n = 93), disc excision (n = 38), and segmental resection (n = 47).³⁴ The major complication rate was significantly higher for those undergoing segmental resection (12.5%, P <.001); only 7.7% of those who underwent disc resection experienced a major complication; and none were observed in the group treated with shaving excision.

In 2011, De Cicco and colleagues conducted a systematic review of 1,889 patients who underwent segmental bowel resection.³⁵ The major complication rate was 11%, with a leakage rate of 2.7%, fistula rate of 1.8%, major obstruction rate of 2.7%, and hemorrhage rate of 2.5%. Many of these complications, however, occurred in patients who had low rectal resections.

Regardless of surgical approach, the complication rate is related to the surgeon’s ability to preserve the superior and inferior hypogastric plexuses and the sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve bundles (FIGURE 7). Nerve-sparing techniques should be used to decrease the incidence of postoperative bowel, bladder, and sexual function complications.² 

Our group’s preferences

In our practice, we emphasize that the choice of surgical technique depends on the location, size, and depth of the lesion, as well as the extent of bowel wall circumferential invasion.²

We categorize lesions by their anatomic location: those above the sigmoid colon, on the sigmoid colon, on the rectosigmoid colon, and on the rectum. For lesions above the sigmoid colon, segmental or disc resection is appropriate.² We recommend segmental resection for multifocal lesions, lesions larger than 3 cm, or for lesions involving more than one-third of the bowel lumen.^37,44,45,47 Disc resection is appropriate for lesions smaller than 3 cm even if the bowel lumen is involved.^44,45,48 If endometriosis is encountered in any location along the bowel, appendectomy can be performed even without visible disease, due to a high incidence of occult disease of the appendix.^49,50

When lesions involve the sigmoid colon, we prefer utilizing shaving excision when possible to limit dissection of the retrorectal space and pelvic sidewall nerves.² Segmental resection at or below the sigmoid colon has been associated with postoperative surgical site leakage⁵¹ and long-term bowel and bladder dysfunction with risk of permanent colostomy.^52,53 For lesions smaller than 3 cm or involving less than one-third of the bowel lumen, disc resection can be performed. Segmental resection is required if multifocal disease or obstruction are present, if lesions are larger than 3 cm, or if more than one-third of the bowel lumen is involved.

For lesions along the rectosigmoid colon, we prefer utilizing shaving excision when possible.² Disc excision can be performed utilizing a transanal approach, being mindful to minimize dissection of the retroperitoneal space and pelvic sidewall nerves.⁴⁸ Segmental resection is avoided even with lesions larger than 3 cm, unless prior surgery has failed. Approaches for segmental resection can utilize laparoscopy or the natural orifices of the rectum or vagina.^31,51

For lesions on the rectum, we strongly advise shaving excision.² Evidence fails to show that the benefits of segmental resection outweigh the risks when compared to conservative techniques at the rectum.^30,39,54 There is evidence indicating that aggressive surgery 5 to 8 cm from the anal verge is predictive of postoperative complications.⁵⁵ In our group, we use shaving excision to remove as much disease as possible without compromising the integrity of the bowel wall or surrounding neurovascular structures. We err on the side of caution, leaving some of the disease on the rectum to avoid rectal perforation, and plan for postoperative hormonal suppression in these patients.

For patients desiring fertility, successful pregnancy is often achieved using the shaving technique.⁴¹

Among peri- and postmenopausal women, abnormal bleeding, breast cancer, and mood disorders represent prevalent conditions. In this Update, we discuss data from a review that provides quantitative information on the likelihood of finding endometrial cancer among women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB). We also summarize 2 recent consensus recommendations: One addresses the clinically important but controversial issue of the treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in breast cancer survivors, and the other provides guidance on the management of depression in perimenopausal women.

Endometrial cancer is associated with a high prevalence of PMB 

Clarke MA, Long BJ, Del Mar Morillo A, et al. Association of endometrial cancer risk with postmenopausal bleeding in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1210-1222. 

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer among US women. In recent years, the incidence of and mortality from endometrial cancer have increased.¹ Despite the high prevalence of endometrial cancer, population-based screening currently is not recommended. 

PMB affects up to 10% of women and can be caused by endometrial atrophy, endometrial polyps, uterine leiomyoma, and malignancy. While it is well known that PMB is a common presenting symptom of endometrial cancer, we do not have good data to guide counseling patients with PMB on the likelihood that endometrial cancer is present. Similarly, estimates are lacking regarding what proportion of women with endometrial cancer will present with PMB. 

To address these 2 issues, Clarke and colleagues conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of PMB among women with endometrial cancer (sensitivity) and the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB (positive predictive value). The authors included 129 studies--with 34,432 women with PMB and 6,358 with endometrial cancer--in their report.

Cancer prevalence varied with HT use, geographic location 

The study findings demonstrated that the prevalence of PMB in women with endometrial cancer was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-94%), and there was no significant difference in the occurrence of PMB by cancer stage. The risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB ranged from 0% to 48%, yielding an overall pooled estimate of 9% (95% CI, 8%-11%). As an editorialist pointed out, the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB is similar to that of colorectal cancer in individuals with rectal bleeding (8%) and breast cancer in women with a palpable mass (10%), supporting current guidance that recommends evaluation of women with PMB.² Evaluating 100 women with PMB to diagnose 9 endometrial cancers does not seem excessive. 

Interestingly, among women with PMB, the prevalence of endometrial cancer was significantly higher among women not using hormone therapy (HT) than among users of HT (12% and 7%, respectively). In 7 studies restricted to women with PMB and polyps (n = 2,801), the pooled risk of endometrial cancer was 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%). In an analysis stratified by geographic region, a striking difference was noted in the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB in North America (5%), Northern Europe (7%), and in Western Europe (13%). This finding may be explained by regional differences in the approach to evaluating PMB, cultural perceptions of PMB that can affect thresholds to present for care, and differences in risk factors between these populations. 

The study had several limitations, including an inability to evaluate the number of years since menopause and the effects of body mass index. Additionally, the study did not address endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. 

Treating GSM in breast cancer survivors: New guidance targets QoL and sexuality 

Faubion SS, Larkin LC, Stuenkel CA, et al. Management of genitourinary syndrome of menopause in women with or at high risk for breast cancer: consensus recommendations from The North American Menopause Society and The International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health. Menopause. 2018;25:596-608. 

Given that there is little evidence addressing the safety of vaginal estrogen, other hormonal therapies, and nonprescription treatments for GSM in breast cancer survivors, many survivors with bothersome GSM symptoms are not appropriately treated.

Continue to: Expert panel creates evidence-based guidance...

Against this backdrop, The North American Menopause Society and the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health convened a group comprised of menopause specialists (ObGyns, internists, and nurse practitioners), specialists in sexuality, medical oncologists specializing in breast cancer, and a psychologist to create evidence-based interdisciplinary consensus guidelines for enhancing quality of life and sexuality for breast cancer survivors with GSM. 

Measures to help enhance quality of life and sexuality 

The group's key recommendations for clinicians include: 

• Sexual function and quality of life (QoL) should be assessed in all women with or at high risk for breast cancer. 
• Management of GSM should be individualized based on shared decision-making involving the patient and her oncologist. 
• Initial treatment options include: 

—over-the-counter vaginal moisturizers used several times weekly on a regular basis 
—lubricants used with intercourse  
—vaginal dilator therapy  
—pelvic floor physical therapy. 
 

• Low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy may be appropriate for select women who have been treated for breast cancer: 

—With use of vaginal estrogen, serum estradiol levels remain in the postmenopausal range. 
—Based on limited data, use of vaginal estrogen is associated with a minimal risk for recurrence of breast cancer. 
—Because their use is associated with the lowest serum estradiol levels, vaginal tablets, rings, or inserts may be preferable to creams.  
—Decisions regarding use of vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors should involve the woman's oncologist. Appropriate candidates for off-label use of vaginal estrogen may be survivors:

–who are at relatively low risk for recurrence 
–with hormone receptor-negative disease
–using tamoxifen rather than an AI 
–who are particularly concerned about quality of life.

—Given that AIs prevent recurrence by lowering estrogen levels, oncologists may be reluctant to consider use of vaginal estrogen in survivors using adjuvant agents. 
—With respect to use of vaginal estrogen, oncologists may be more comfortable with use in patients taking tamoxifen. 

• Neither intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA; prasterone) nor the oral selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene has been studied in breast cancer survivors. 

In women with metastatic disease, QoL, comfort, and sexual intimacy are key considerations when weighing potential therapies; optimal choices will vary with probability of long-term survival. 

Framework provided for managing depressive disorders in perimenopausal women 

Maki PM, Kornstein SG, Joffe H, et al; Board of Trustees for The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and the Women and Mood Disorders Task Force of the National Network of Depression Centers. Guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of perimenopausal depression: summary and recommendations. Menopause. 2018;25:1069-1085. 

Although perimenopausal women are more susceptible to the development of depressive symptoms and major depressive episodes (MDE), there is a lack of consensus regarding how to evaluate and treat depression in women during the menopausal transition and postmenopausal period. 

Recently, an expert panel comprised of representatives from The North American Menopause Society and the National Network of Depression Centers Women and Mood Disorders Task Group developed clinical guidelines addressing epidemiology, clinical presentation, therapeutic effects of antidepressants, effects of HT, and efficacy of other therapies. Here we provide a summary of the expert panel's findings and guidelines. 

Continue to: Certain factors are associated with higher risk for depression...

The perimenopause represents a time of increased risk for depressive symptoms and major depressive disorder (MDD), even in women with no prior history of depression. Several characteristics and health factors are associated with the increased risk during the menopause transition. These include a prior history of MDD, current antidepressant use, anxiety, premenstrual depressive symptoms, African American race, high body mass index, younger age, social isolation, upsetting life events, and menopausal sleep disturbances.  

Although data are inconclusive on whether surgical menopause increases or decreases the risk for developing depression compared with women who transition through menopause naturally, recent studies show an elevated risk of depression in women following hysterectomy with and without oophorectomy.^6,7 

Menopausal and depressive symptoms can overlap 

Midlife depression presents with classic depressive symptoms that commonly occur in combination with menopausal symptoms, including vasomotor symptoms, sleep and sexual disturbances, and weight and energy changes. These menopausal symptoms can complicate, co-occur, and overlap with the clinical presentation of depression. 

Conversely, depression may affect an individual's judgment of the degree of bother from menopausal somatic symptoms, thereby further magnifying the effect of symptoms on quality of life. The interrelationship between depressive symptoms and menopausal symptoms may pose a challenge when attempting to parse out contributing etiologies, relative contributions of each etiology, and the potential additive effects. 

Diagnosis and treatment options 

Diagnosis involves identifying the menopausal stage, assessing for co-existing psychiatric and menopause symptoms, appreciating the psychosocial factors common in midlife, and considering the differential diagnosis. Validated screening instruments can be helpful. Although a menopause-specific mood disorder scale does not yet exist, several general validated screening measures, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, or PHQ-9, can be used for categorical determination of mood disorder diagnoses during the menopause transition. 

Antidepressants, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and other psychotherapies are considered first-line treatments for perimenopausal major depressive episodes. Only desvenlafaxine has been studied in large randomized placebo-controlled trials and has proven efficacious for the treatment of MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. 

A number of small open-label studies of other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and mirtazapine to treat MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have demonstrated a positive effect on mood, and several SSRIs and SNRIs also have the added benefit of improving menopause-related symptoms. 

In women with a history of MDD, a prior adequate response to a particular antidepressant should guide treatment selection when MDD recurs during the midlife years. 

Although estrogen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration specifically for the treatment of mood disturbances, some evidence suggests that unopposed estrogen therapy has efficacy similar to that of antidepressant medications in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women,^8-11 but it is ineffective in treating depressive disorders in postmenopausal women. Estrogen therapy also may augment the clinical response to antidepressants in midlife and older women.^12,13 The data on combined HT (estrogen plus progestogen) or for different progestogens in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women are lacking and inconclusive.  

Among peri- and postmenopausal women, abnormal bleeding, breast cancer, and mood disorders represent prevalent conditions. In this Update, we discuss data from a review that provides quantitative information on the likelihood of finding endometrial cancer among women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB). We also summarize 2 recent consensus recommendations: One addresses the clinically important but controversial issue of the treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in breast cancer survivors, and the other provides guidance on the management of depression in perimenopausal women.

Endometrial cancer is associated with a high prevalence of PMB 

Clarke MA, Long BJ, Del Mar Morillo A, et al. Association of endometrial cancer risk with postmenopausal bleeding in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1210-1222. 

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer among US women. In recent years, the incidence of and mortality from endometrial cancer have increased.¹ Despite the high prevalence of endometrial cancer, population-based screening currently is not recommended. 

PMB affects up to 10% of women and can be caused by endometrial atrophy, endometrial polyps, uterine leiomyoma, and malignancy. While it is well known that PMB is a common presenting symptom of endometrial cancer, we do not have good data to guide counseling patients with PMB on the likelihood that endometrial cancer is present. Similarly, estimates are lacking regarding what proportion of women with endometrial cancer will present with PMB. 

To address these 2 issues, Clarke and colleagues conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of PMB among women with endometrial cancer (sensitivity) and the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB (positive predictive value). The authors included 129 studies--with 34,432 women with PMB and 6,358 with endometrial cancer--in their report.

Cancer prevalence varied with HT use, geographic location 

The study findings demonstrated that the prevalence of PMB in women with endometrial cancer was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-94%), and there was no significant difference in the occurrence of PMB by cancer stage. The risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB ranged from 0% to 48%, yielding an overall pooled estimate of 9% (95% CI, 8%-11%). As an editorialist pointed out, the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB is similar to that of colorectal cancer in individuals with rectal bleeding (8%) and breast cancer in women with a palpable mass (10%), supporting current guidance that recommends evaluation of women with PMB.² Evaluating 100 women with PMB to diagnose 9 endometrial cancers does not seem excessive. 

Interestingly, among women with PMB, the prevalence of endometrial cancer was significantly higher among women not using hormone therapy (HT) than among users of HT (12% and 7%, respectively). In 7 studies restricted to women with PMB and polyps (n = 2,801), the pooled risk of endometrial cancer was 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%). In an analysis stratified by geographic region, a striking difference was noted in the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB in North America (5%), Northern Europe (7%), and in Western Europe (13%). This finding may be explained by regional differences in the approach to evaluating PMB, cultural perceptions of PMB that can affect thresholds to present for care, and differences in risk factors between these populations. 

The study had several limitations, including an inability to evaluate the number of years since menopause and the effects of body mass index. Additionally, the study did not address endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. 

Treating GSM in breast cancer survivors: New guidance targets QoL and sexuality 

Faubion SS, Larkin LC, Stuenkel CA, et al. Management of genitourinary syndrome of menopause in women with or at high risk for breast cancer: consensus recommendations from The North American Menopause Society and The International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health. Menopause. 2018;25:596-608. 

Given that there is little evidence addressing the safety of vaginal estrogen, other hormonal therapies, and nonprescription treatments for GSM in breast cancer survivors, many survivors with bothersome GSM symptoms are not appropriately treated.

Continue to: Expert panel creates evidence-based guidance...

Against this backdrop, The North American Menopause Society and the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health convened a group comprised of menopause specialists (ObGyns, internists, and nurse practitioners), specialists in sexuality, medical oncologists specializing in breast cancer, and a psychologist to create evidence-based interdisciplinary consensus guidelines for enhancing quality of life and sexuality for breast cancer survivors with GSM. 

Measures to help enhance quality of life and sexuality 

The group's key recommendations for clinicians include: 

• Sexual function and quality of life (QoL) should be assessed in all women with or at high risk for breast cancer. 
• Management of GSM should be individualized based on shared decision-making involving the patient and her oncologist. 
• Initial treatment options include: 

—over-the-counter vaginal moisturizers used several times weekly on a regular basis 
—lubricants used with intercourse  
—vaginal dilator therapy  
—pelvic floor physical therapy. 
 

• Low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy may be appropriate for select women who have been treated for breast cancer: 

—With use of vaginal estrogen, serum estradiol levels remain in the postmenopausal range. 
—Based on limited data, use of vaginal estrogen is associated with a minimal risk for recurrence of breast cancer. 
—Because their use is associated with the lowest serum estradiol levels, vaginal tablets, rings, or inserts may be preferable to creams.  
—Decisions regarding use of vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors should involve the woman's oncologist. Appropriate candidates for off-label use of vaginal estrogen may be survivors:

–who are at relatively low risk for recurrence 
–with hormone receptor-negative disease
–using tamoxifen rather than an AI 
–who are particularly concerned about quality of life.

—Given that AIs prevent recurrence by lowering estrogen levels, oncologists may be reluctant to consider use of vaginal estrogen in survivors using adjuvant agents. 
—With respect to use of vaginal estrogen, oncologists may be more comfortable with use in patients taking tamoxifen. 

• Neither intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA; prasterone) nor the oral selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene has been studied in breast cancer survivors. 

In women with metastatic disease, QoL, comfort, and sexual intimacy are key considerations when weighing potential therapies; optimal choices will vary with probability of long-term survival. 

Framework provided for managing depressive disorders in perimenopausal women 

Maki PM, Kornstein SG, Joffe H, et al; Board of Trustees for The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and the Women and Mood Disorders Task Force of the National Network of Depression Centers. Guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of perimenopausal depression: summary and recommendations. Menopause. 2018;25:1069-1085. 

Although perimenopausal women are more susceptible to the development of depressive symptoms and major depressive episodes (MDE), there is a lack of consensus regarding how to evaluate and treat depression in women during the menopausal transition and postmenopausal period. 

Recently, an expert panel comprised of representatives from The North American Menopause Society and the National Network of Depression Centers Women and Mood Disorders Task Group developed clinical guidelines addressing epidemiology, clinical presentation, therapeutic effects of antidepressants, effects of HT, and efficacy of other therapies. Here we provide a summary of the expert panel's findings and guidelines. 

Continue to: Certain factors are associated with higher risk for depression...

The perimenopause represents a time of increased risk for depressive symptoms and major depressive disorder (MDD), even in women with no prior history of depression. Several characteristics and health factors are associated with the increased risk during the menopause transition. These include a prior history of MDD, current antidepressant use, anxiety, premenstrual depressive symptoms, African American race, high body mass index, younger age, social isolation, upsetting life events, and menopausal sleep disturbances.  

Although data are inconclusive on whether surgical menopause increases or decreases the risk for developing depression compared with women who transition through menopause naturally, recent studies show an elevated risk of depression in women following hysterectomy with and without oophorectomy.^6,7 

Menopausal and depressive symptoms can overlap 

Midlife depression presents with classic depressive symptoms that commonly occur in combination with menopausal symptoms, including vasomotor symptoms, sleep and sexual disturbances, and weight and energy changes. These menopausal symptoms can complicate, co-occur, and overlap with the clinical presentation of depression. 

Conversely, depression may affect an individual's judgment of the degree of bother from menopausal somatic symptoms, thereby further magnifying the effect of symptoms on quality of life. The interrelationship between depressive symptoms and menopausal symptoms may pose a challenge when attempting to parse out contributing etiologies, relative contributions of each etiology, and the potential additive effects. 

Diagnosis and treatment options 

Diagnosis involves identifying the menopausal stage, assessing for co-existing psychiatric and menopause symptoms, appreciating the psychosocial factors common in midlife, and considering the differential diagnosis. Validated screening instruments can be helpful. Although a menopause-specific mood disorder scale does not yet exist, several general validated screening measures, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, or PHQ-9, can be used for categorical determination of mood disorder diagnoses during the menopause transition. 

Antidepressants, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and other psychotherapies are considered first-line treatments for perimenopausal major depressive episodes. Only desvenlafaxine has been studied in large randomized placebo-controlled trials and has proven efficacious for the treatment of MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. 

A number of small open-label studies of other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and mirtazapine to treat MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have demonstrated a positive effect on mood, and several SSRIs and SNRIs also have the added benefit of improving menopause-related symptoms. 

In women with a history of MDD, a prior adequate response to a particular antidepressant should guide treatment selection when MDD recurs during the midlife years. 

Although estrogen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration specifically for the treatment of mood disturbances, some evidence suggests that unopposed estrogen therapy has efficacy similar to that of antidepressant medications in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women,^8-11 but it is ineffective in treating depressive disorders in postmenopausal women. Estrogen therapy also may augment the clinical response to antidepressants in midlife and older women.^12,13 The data on combined HT (estrogen plus progestogen) or for different progestogens in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women are lacking and inconclusive.  

Among peri- and postmenopausal women, abnormal bleeding, breast cancer, and mood disorders represent prevalent conditions. In this Update, we discuss data from a review that provides quantitative information on the likelihood of finding endometrial cancer among women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB). We also summarize 2 recent consensus recommendations: One addresses the clinically important but controversial issue of the treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in breast cancer survivors, and the other provides guidance on the management of depression in perimenopausal women.

Endometrial cancer is associated with a high prevalence of PMB 

Clarke MA, Long BJ, Del Mar Morillo A, et al. Association of endometrial cancer risk with postmenopausal bleeding in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1210-1222. 

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer among US women. In recent years, the incidence of and mortality from endometrial cancer have increased.¹ Despite the high prevalence of endometrial cancer, population-based screening currently is not recommended. 

PMB affects up to 10% of women and can be caused by endometrial atrophy, endometrial polyps, uterine leiomyoma, and malignancy. While it is well known that PMB is a common presenting symptom of endometrial cancer, we do not have good data to guide counseling patients with PMB on the likelihood that endometrial cancer is present. Similarly, estimates are lacking regarding what proportion of women with endometrial cancer will present with PMB. 

To address these 2 issues, Clarke and colleagues conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of PMB among women with endometrial cancer (sensitivity) and the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB (positive predictive value). The authors included 129 studies--with 34,432 women with PMB and 6,358 with endometrial cancer--in their report.

Cancer prevalence varied with HT use, geographic location 

The study findings demonstrated that the prevalence of PMB in women with endometrial cancer was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-94%), and there was no significant difference in the occurrence of PMB by cancer stage. The risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB ranged from 0% to 48%, yielding an overall pooled estimate of 9% (95% CI, 8%-11%). As an editorialist pointed out, the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB is similar to that of colorectal cancer in individuals with rectal bleeding (8%) and breast cancer in women with a palpable mass (10%), supporting current guidance that recommends evaluation of women with PMB.² Evaluating 100 women with PMB to diagnose 9 endometrial cancers does not seem excessive. 

Interestingly, among women with PMB, the prevalence of endometrial cancer was significantly higher among women not using hormone therapy (HT) than among users of HT (12% and 7%, respectively). In 7 studies restricted to women with PMB and polyps (n = 2,801), the pooled risk of endometrial cancer was 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%). In an analysis stratified by geographic region, a striking difference was noted in the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB in North America (5%), Northern Europe (7%), and in Western Europe (13%). This finding may be explained by regional differences in the approach to evaluating PMB, cultural perceptions of PMB that can affect thresholds to present for care, and differences in risk factors between these populations. 

The study had several limitations, including an inability to evaluate the number of years since menopause and the effects of body mass index. Additionally, the study did not address endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. 

Treating GSM in breast cancer survivors: New guidance targets QoL and sexuality 

Faubion SS, Larkin LC, Stuenkel CA, et al. Management of genitourinary syndrome of menopause in women with or at high risk for breast cancer: consensus recommendations from The North American Menopause Society and The International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health. Menopause. 2018;25:596-608. 

Given that there is little evidence addressing the safety of vaginal estrogen, other hormonal therapies, and nonprescription treatments for GSM in breast cancer survivors, many survivors with bothersome GSM symptoms are not appropriately treated.

Continue to: Expert panel creates evidence-based guidance...

Against this backdrop, The North American Menopause Society and the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health convened a group comprised of menopause specialists (ObGyns, internists, and nurse practitioners), specialists in sexuality, medical oncologists specializing in breast cancer, and a psychologist to create evidence-based interdisciplinary consensus guidelines for enhancing quality of life and sexuality for breast cancer survivors with GSM. 

Measures to help enhance quality of life and sexuality 

The group's key recommendations for clinicians include: 

• Sexual function and quality of life (QoL) should be assessed in all women with or at high risk for breast cancer. 
• Management of GSM should be individualized based on shared decision-making involving the patient and her oncologist. 
• Initial treatment options include: 

—over-the-counter vaginal moisturizers used several times weekly on a regular basis 
—lubricants used with intercourse  
—vaginal dilator therapy  
—pelvic floor physical therapy. 
 

• Low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy may be appropriate for select women who have been treated for breast cancer: 

—With use of vaginal estrogen, serum estradiol levels remain in the postmenopausal range. 
—Based on limited data, use of vaginal estrogen is associated with a minimal risk for recurrence of breast cancer. 
—Because their use is associated with the lowest serum estradiol levels, vaginal tablets, rings, or inserts may be preferable to creams.  
—Decisions regarding use of vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors should involve the woman's oncologist. Appropriate candidates for off-label use of vaginal estrogen may be survivors:

–who are at relatively low risk for recurrence 
–with hormone receptor-negative disease
–using tamoxifen rather than an AI 
–who are particularly concerned about quality of life.

—Given that AIs prevent recurrence by lowering estrogen levels, oncologists may be reluctant to consider use of vaginal estrogen in survivors using adjuvant agents. 
—With respect to use of vaginal estrogen, oncologists may be more comfortable with use in patients taking tamoxifen. 

• Neither intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA; prasterone) nor the oral selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene has been studied in breast cancer survivors. 

In women with metastatic disease, QoL, comfort, and sexual intimacy are key considerations when weighing potential therapies; optimal choices will vary with probability of long-term survival. 

Framework provided for managing depressive disorders in perimenopausal women 

Maki PM, Kornstein SG, Joffe H, et al; Board of Trustees for The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and the Women and Mood Disorders Task Force of the National Network of Depression Centers. Guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of perimenopausal depression: summary and recommendations. Menopause. 2018;25:1069-1085. 

Although perimenopausal women are more susceptible to the development of depressive symptoms and major depressive episodes (MDE), there is a lack of consensus regarding how to evaluate and treat depression in women during the menopausal transition and postmenopausal period. 

Recently, an expert panel comprised of representatives from The North American Menopause Society and the National Network of Depression Centers Women and Mood Disorders Task Group developed clinical guidelines addressing epidemiology, clinical presentation, therapeutic effects of antidepressants, effects of HT, and efficacy of other therapies. Here we provide a summary of the expert panel's findings and guidelines. 

Continue to: Certain factors are associated with higher risk for depression...

The perimenopause represents a time of increased risk for depressive symptoms and major depressive disorder (MDD), even in women with no prior history of depression. Several characteristics and health factors are associated with the increased risk during the menopause transition. These include a prior history of MDD, current antidepressant use, anxiety, premenstrual depressive symptoms, African American race, high body mass index, younger age, social isolation, upsetting life events, and menopausal sleep disturbances.  

Although data are inconclusive on whether surgical menopause increases or decreases the risk for developing depression compared with women who transition through menopause naturally, recent studies show an elevated risk of depression in women following hysterectomy with and without oophorectomy.^6,7 

Menopausal and depressive symptoms can overlap 

Midlife depression presents with classic depressive symptoms that commonly occur in combination with menopausal symptoms, including vasomotor symptoms, sleep and sexual disturbances, and weight and energy changes. These menopausal symptoms can complicate, co-occur, and overlap with the clinical presentation of depression. 

Conversely, depression may affect an individual's judgment of the degree of bother from menopausal somatic symptoms, thereby further magnifying the effect of symptoms on quality of life. The interrelationship between depressive symptoms and menopausal symptoms may pose a challenge when attempting to parse out contributing etiologies, relative contributions of each etiology, and the potential additive effects. 

Diagnosis and treatment options 

Diagnosis involves identifying the menopausal stage, assessing for co-existing psychiatric and menopause symptoms, appreciating the psychosocial factors common in midlife, and considering the differential diagnosis. Validated screening instruments can be helpful. Although a menopause-specific mood disorder scale does not yet exist, several general validated screening measures, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, or PHQ-9, can be used for categorical determination of mood disorder diagnoses during the menopause transition. 

Antidepressants, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and other psychotherapies are considered first-line treatments for perimenopausal major depressive episodes. Only desvenlafaxine has been studied in large randomized placebo-controlled trials and has proven efficacious for the treatment of MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. 

A number of small open-label studies of other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and mirtazapine to treat MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have demonstrated a positive effect on mood, and several SSRIs and SNRIs also have the added benefit of improving menopause-related symptoms. 

In women with a history of MDD, a prior adequate response to a particular antidepressant should guide treatment selection when MDD recurs during the midlife years. 

Although estrogen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration specifically for the treatment of mood disturbances, some evidence suggests that unopposed estrogen therapy has efficacy similar to that of antidepressant medications in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women,^8-11 but it is ineffective in treating depressive disorders in postmenopausal women. Estrogen therapy also may augment the clinical response to antidepressants in midlife and older women.^12,13 The data on combined HT (estrogen plus progestogen) or for different progestogens in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women are lacking and inconclusive.  

In an effort to reduce burden on physicians and qualified health care professionals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( CMS) has made changes to Evaluation and Management (E/M) documentation requirements and payment policies. Get ready for fairly extensive changes planned for CY 2021. Here we outline already-implemented and future changes and describe the commitment of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to ObGyn payment in its collaborations with CMS and the American Medical Association (AMA).

E/M services: CMS reduced documentation

Effective January 2019, the CMS made changes to the documentation requirements for E/M services to provide some common-sense relief for physicians facing excessive documentation requirements in their practices. Most physicians agree that modern medical practice, with the use of electronic health records (EHRs), is different now than in the mid-1990s, when the current E/M structures were developed and implemented. Streamlining documentation requirements reduces paperwork burden and some of the time-consuming duplicative work involved in medical practice today.

For instance, when relevant information is already contained in the medical record, it is not necessary to re-document a full medical history. Physicians will now be able to focus their documentation on the interval since the previous visit. Physicians should still review prior data, update as necessary, and indicate in the medical record that they have done so.

Also, for E/M office and outpatient visits for both new and established patients, physicians are no longer required to re-document information that has already been entered in the patient’s record by practice staff or by the patient. If the patient’s chief complaint and history already has been entered by ancillary staff or the beneficiary, the physician should simply indicate in the medical record that the information has been reviewed and verified.

For E/M visits furnished by teaching physicians, CMS has removed the requirement for potentially duplicative notations that may have been made previously in the medical records by residents or other members of the medical team.

Finally, CMS eliminated the requirement to document the medical necessity of a home visit in lieu of an office visit.

Continue to: Outpatient coding changes for 2021...

Outpatient coding changes for 2021

Outpatient coding for E/M will continue in its current form for the remainder of 2019 and 2020. However, in 2021, expect substantial changes to take effect. If the CMS rule is instituted, payment for E/M office and outpatient visits will be drastically “simplified.” The current CMS plan for 2021 is to collapse payment for existing E/M Levels 2 through 4 to one payment level for new patients and one payment level for established patients, with optional add-on codes. Level 5 visits will continue at a separate payment level and with continuation of current documentation requirements.

In addition to collapsing the payment in E/M Levels 2, 3, and 4, CMS also will allow flexibility in how those E/M office and outpatient visits are documented. Specifically, documentation may be based on any of the following:

• current framework (1995 or 1997 guidelines)
• medical decision making (MDM)
• time.

When using MDM or the current 1995/1997 framework to document an office visit, Medicare will only require documentation to support a Level 2 E/M outpatient visit code for history, exam, and/or MDM. When time is used as the basis for coding the visit, physicians will document the medical necessity of the visit and that the billing practitioner personally spent the required amount of time face-to-face with the beneficiary.

CMS also has finalized the creation of new add-on codes that describe the additional resources inherent in visits for primary care and particular kinds of nonprocedural specialized medical care (and will not be restricted by physician specialty). These codes would only be reportable with E/M office and outpatient level 2 through 4 visits, and their use generally would not impose new documentation requirements. It is not clear which types of visits would support the use of these add-on codes at this time.

Finally, a new “extended visit” add-on code will be available for use only with E/M Level 2 through 4 visits to account for the additional resources required when spending extended time with a patient.

CMS believes these policies will allow physicians, and all who bill E/M codes, greater flexibility to exercise clinical judgment in their documentation, so that they can focus on what is clinically relevant and medically necessary for the beneficiary.

ACOG’s voice in the process

ACOG strongly opposed several proposals that CMS made during the rule-making process that the agency decided not to finalize. These aspects of the proposal would have:

1. reduced payment by 50% for the least expensive procedure or visit when an E/M office or outpatient visit is furnished on the same day as a procedure by the same physician. These are separately identifiable E/M visits that normally would be reported with a modifier 25.
2. established separate coding and payment for podiatric E/M visits, or
3. standardized the allocation of practice expense relative value units (RVUs) for the codes that describe these services.

CMS has stated that they intend to engage in further discussions with the public and stakeholders to potentially further refine the policies for CY 2021.

Continue to: AMA-CPT and RUC initiative...

AMA-CPT and RUC initiative

Although the AMA, ACOG, and physicians in general applauded the CMS initiative to reduce the administrative and documentation burden on providers, there was concern about the unintended consequences of the payment changes that are currently scheduled to take effect in 2021. To address these concerns, the AMA convened a work group of physician experts who are knowledgeable in the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code development and valuation processes. The charge to the E/M work group is to collaborate across the provider, payer, and coding communities to establish or revise the coding structure and guidelines for outpatient E/M services. The members formed a multispecialty work group representing primary care and surgical specialties and have experience in developing, defining, and valuing codes.

Dr. Barbara Levy, ACOG’s Vice President of Health Policy, co-chaired this expert panel with geriatrician Dr. Peter Hollmann to develop comprehensive consensus-led changes to revise and modernize E/M codes. The work group followed 4 guiding principles to inform their E/M work:

1. to decrease the administrative burden of documentation and coding
2. to decrease the need for audits
3. to decrease unnecessary and redundant documentation in the medical record that is not needed for patient care
4. to ensure that payment for E/M services is resource based. There is no direct goal for payment redistribution among specialties.

A primary concern expressed by physicians about the CMS proposal was that the collapse of payment for E/M visit across levels 2–4 might lead to a lack of appropriate care for more complex patients since the CMS rule does not provide payment based on the resources required to perform the work of the visit. No one believes that the work needed to care for someone with a sore throat or pink eye is equivalent to the work involved in diagnosing and managing depression, for example.

Beginning in August 2018, the work group met regularly to build consensus. The work group worked at an accelerated pace to develop and value codes that better fit the current medical workflows and meet patient needs.

The work group submitted a code change proposal for E/M codes to the CPT Editorial Panel for consideration during the February 2019 meeting. The next step was the code valuation process through the AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee (RUC) process.

CMS has stated that the 2-year delay to 2021 in implementation of their original proposed changes is to allow time for the E/M code change proposals to move through the development and valuation process and subsequent review by the agency. To date, commercial payers and coders have been supportive of the AMA E/M work group proposals. Dr. Levy, Dr. Hollmann, and AMA staff are meeting with CMS and Department of Health and Human Services staff to provide clarity as they review the CPT proposals. ACOG supports the changes, which would simplify documentation for outpatient E/M codes while retaining differential payments. CMS is closely following the progress of the code changes through the CPT process and RUC code valuation process. We await further rulemaking by CMS in defining and valuing this important code set.

Continue to: ACOG is at the helm, with a watchful eye...

ACOG is at the helm, with a watchful eye

This is a challenging undertaking because E/M codes are used across specialties for office visits and outpatient care. The potential for unintended consequences for all services that include E/M, such as the global obstetrical services or 90-day global surgical services, is substantial. ACOG is intimately involved in this undertaking, watching the developments carefully to ensure that the interests of ObGyns and their patients are protected.

In an effort to reduce burden on physicians and qualified health care professionals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( CMS) has made changes to Evaluation and Management (E/M) documentation requirements and payment policies. Get ready for fairly extensive changes planned for CY 2021. Here we outline already-implemented and future changes and describe the commitment of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to ObGyn payment in its collaborations with CMS and the American Medical Association (AMA).

E/M services: CMS reduced documentation

Effective January 2019, the CMS made changes to the documentation requirements for E/M services to provide some common-sense relief for physicians facing excessive documentation requirements in their practices. Most physicians agree that modern medical practice, with the use of electronic health records (EHRs), is different now than in the mid-1990s, when the current E/M structures were developed and implemented. Streamlining documentation requirements reduces paperwork burden and some of the time-consuming duplicative work involved in medical practice today.

For instance, when relevant information is already contained in the medical record, it is not necessary to re-document a full medical history. Physicians will now be able to focus their documentation on the interval since the previous visit. Physicians should still review prior data, update as necessary, and indicate in the medical record that they have done so.

Also, for E/M office and outpatient visits for both new and established patients, physicians are no longer required to re-document information that has already been entered in the patient’s record by practice staff or by the patient. If the patient’s chief complaint and history already has been entered by ancillary staff or the beneficiary, the physician should simply indicate in the medical record that the information has been reviewed and verified.

For E/M visits furnished by teaching physicians, CMS has removed the requirement for potentially duplicative notations that may have been made previously in the medical records by residents or other members of the medical team.

Finally, CMS eliminated the requirement to document the medical necessity of a home visit in lieu of an office visit.

Continue to: Outpatient coding changes for 2021...

Outpatient coding changes for 2021

Outpatient coding for E/M will continue in its current form for the remainder of 2019 and 2020. However, in 2021, expect substantial changes to take effect. If the CMS rule is instituted, payment for E/M office and outpatient visits will be drastically “simplified.” The current CMS plan for 2021 is to collapse payment for existing E/M Levels 2 through 4 to one payment level for new patients and one payment level for established patients, with optional add-on codes. Level 5 visits will continue at a separate payment level and with continuation of current documentation requirements.

In addition to collapsing the payment in E/M Levels 2, 3, and 4, CMS also will allow flexibility in how those E/M office and outpatient visits are documented. Specifically, documentation may be based on any of the following:

• current framework (1995 or 1997 guidelines)
• medical decision making (MDM)
• time.

When using MDM or the current 1995/1997 framework to document an office visit, Medicare will only require documentation to support a Level 2 E/M outpatient visit code for history, exam, and/or MDM. When time is used as the basis for coding the visit, physicians will document the medical necessity of the visit and that the billing practitioner personally spent the required amount of time face-to-face with the beneficiary.

CMS also has finalized the creation of new add-on codes that describe the additional resources inherent in visits for primary care and particular kinds of nonprocedural specialized medical care (and will not be restricted by physician specialty). These codes would only be reportable with E/M office and outpatient level 2 through 4 visits, and their use generally would not impose new documentation requirements. It is not clear which types of visits would support the use of these add-on codes at this time.

Finally, a new “extended visit” add-on code will be available for use only with E/M Level 2 through 4 visits to account for the additional resources required when spending extended time with a patient.

CMS believes these policies will allow physicians, and all who bill E/M codes, greater flexibility to exercise clinical judgment in their documentation, so that they can focus on what is clinically relevant and medically necessary for the beneficiary.

ACOG’s voice in the process

ACOG strongly opposed several proposals that CMS made during the rule-making process that the agency decided not to finalize. These aspects of the proposal would have:

1. reduced payment by 50% for the least expensive procedure or visit when an E/M office or outpatient visit is furnished on the same day as a procedure by the same physician. These are separately identifiable E/M visits that normally would be reported with a modifier 25.
2. established separate coding and payment for podiatric E/M visits, or
3. standardized the allocation of practice expense relative value units (RVUs) for the codes that describe these services.

CMS has stated that they intend to engage in further discussions with the public and stakeholders to potentially further refine the policies for CY 2021.

Continue to: AMA-CPT and RUC initiative...

AMA-CPT and RUC initiative

Although the AMA, ACOG, and physicians in general applauded the CMS initiative to reduce the administrative and documentation burden on providers, there was concern about the unintended consequences of the payment changes that are currently scheduled to take effect in 2021. To address these concerns, the AMA convened a work group of physician experts who are knowledgeable in the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code development and valuation processes. The charge to the E/M work group is to collaborate across the provider, payer, and coding communities to establish or revise the coding structure and guidelines for outpatient E/M services. The members formed a multispecialty work group representing primary care and surgical specialties and have experience in developing, defining, and valuing codes.

Dr. Barbara Levy, ACOG’s Vice President of Health Policy, co-chaired this expert panel with geriatrician Dr. Peter Hollmann to develop comprehensive consensus-led changes to revise and modernize E/M codes. The work group followed 4 guiding principles to inform their E/M work:

1. to decrease the administrative burden of documentation and coding
2. to decrease the need for audits
3. to decrease unnecessary and redundant documentation in the medical record that is not needed for patient care
4. to ensure that payment for E/M services is resource based. There is no direct goal for payment redistribution among specialties.

A primary concern expressed by physicians about the CMS proposal was that the collapse of payment for E/M visit across levels 2–4 might lead to a lack of appropriate care for more complex patients since the CMS rule does not provide payment based on the resources required to perform the work of the visit. No one believes that the work needed to care for someone with a sore throat or pink eye is equivalent to the work involved in diagnosing and managing depression, for example.

Beginning in August 2018, the work group met regularly to build consensus. The work group worked at an accelerated pace to develop and value codes that better fit the current medical workflows and meet patient needs.

The work group submitted a code change proposal for E/M codes to the CPT Editorial Panel for consideration during the February 2019 meeting. The next step was the code valuation process through the AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee (RUC) process.

CMS has stated that the 2-year delay to 2021 in implementation of their original proposed changes is to allow time for the E/M code change proposals to move through the development and valuation process and subsequent review by the agency. To date, commercial payers and coders have been supportive of the AMA E/M work group proposals. Dr. Levy, Dr. Hollmann, and AMA staff are meeting with CMS and Department of Health and Human Services staff to provide clarity as they review the CPT proposals. ACOG supports the changes, which would simplify documentation for outpatient E/M codes while retaining differential payments. CMS is closely following the progress of the code changes through the CPT process and RUC code valuation process. We await further rulemaking by CMS in defining and valuing this important code set.

Continue to: ACOG is at the helm, with a watchful eye...

ACOG is at the helm, with a watchful eye

This is a challenging undertaking because E/M codes are used across specialties for office visits and outpatient care. The potential for unintended consequences for all services that include E/M, such as the global obstetrical services or 90-day global surgical services, is substantial. ACOG is intimately involved in this undertaking, watching the developments carefully to ensure that the interests of ObGyns and their patients are protected.