Search

Coronavirus disease 2019, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. As the pandemic evolves rapidly, there are data emerging to suggest that pregnant women diagnosed as having coronavirus disease 2019 can have severe morbidities (up to 9%). This is in contrast to earlier data that showed good maternal and neonatal outcomes. Clinical manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 include features of acute respiratory illnesses. Typical radiologic findings consists of patchy infiltrates on chest radiograph and ground glass opacities on computed tomography scan of the chest. Patients who are pregnant may present with atypical features such as the absence of fever as well as leukocytosis. Confirmation of coronavirus disease 2019 is by reverse transcriptase-polymerized chain reaction from upper airway swabs. When the reverse transcriptase-polymerized chain reaction test result is negative in suspect cases, chest imaging should be considered. A pregnant woman with coronavirus disease 2019 is at the greatest risk when she is in labor, especially if she is acutely ill. We present an algorithm of care for the acutely ill parturient and guidelines for the protection of the healthcare team who is caring for the patient. Key decisions are made based on the presence of maternal and/or fetal compromise, adequacy of maternal oxygenation (SpO2 >93%) and stability of maternal blood pressure. Although vertical transmission is unlikely, there must be measures in place to prevent neonatal infections. Routine birth processes such as delayed cord clamping and skin-to-skin bonding between mother and newborn need to be revised. Considerations can be made to allow the use of screened donated breast milk from mothers who are free of coronavirus disease 2019. We present management strategies derived from best available evidence to provide guidance in caring for the high-risk and acutely ill parturient. These include protection of the healthcare workers caring for the coronavirus disease 2019 gravida, establishing a diagnosis in symptomatic cases, deciding between reverse transcriptase-polymerized chain reaction and chest imaging, and management of the unwell parturient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the differences in diagnostic performance between diffuse-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE), either alone or in combination with T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), for diagnosing deep myometrial invasion (dMI) of endometrial cancers (EC). We performed a comprehensive search for published studies comparing DWI and DCE for preoperatively diagnosing dMI of EC. The overall diagnostic accuracy of each test was calculated using the areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). The sensitivities and specificities were compared using bivariate meta-regression. Pooled analysis of nineteen studies with 961 patients (main group) showed that DWI had a larger AUC (0.943, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.921–0.967) than DCE (0.922, 95% CI = 0.893–0.953). For the subgroup comprising 7 studies, DWI combined with T2WI and DCE combined with T2WI showed AUCs of 0.959 (95% CI, 0.932–0.986) and 0.929 (95% CI, 0.847–1.000), respectively. None of the differences in AUCs were statistically significant. All comparisons of the sensitivities and specificities of the main group and subgroup also showed no significant differences. This meta-analysis found no significant difference in diagnostic performance between DWI and DCE for diagnosis of dMI in EC. DWI may be preferred for its ease of use in clinical practice. • Assessing deep myometrial invasion in endometrial cancers can be performed with magnetic resonance imaging. • There was no significant difference in diagnostic performance between DWI and DCE-MRI for diagnosis of deep myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer. • Diffusion weighted imaging may be preferred for its ease of use in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Targeted biopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging increases the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP). In this meta-analysis, we compare the diagnostic accuracy of transrectal (TR) vs transperineal (TP) approaches for MRI-guided software fusion biopsy (FB) in the detection of csCaP. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase electronic databases up until July 2019 following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis system. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of either approach was evaluated using radical prostatectomy or systematic biopsies with ≥24 biopsy cores to be the reference standard. Fourteen papers with a total of 2002 patients were selected. Seven hundred and sixty-five patients underwent TR FB, while 1,387 underwent TP FB. One hundred and fifty of the patients underwent both TR and TP approaches. Both approaches were similar in terms of sensitivity (TR vs. TP: 0.81 vs 0.80) and specificity (TR vs. TP: 0.99 vs 0.95). In terms of likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio, TR performed better than TP approach. The area under the receiving operator curve for both approaches was similar (0.91 vs 0.88 respectively). However, there was substantial heterogeneity across the studies for both approaches. TP and TR approaches to software-based FB yield similar diagnostic performance for the detection of csCaP. When deciding on the approach, physicians should consider other inherent features of either technique that suit their practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]