All three techniques demonstrated adequate staging of high-risk endometrial carcinoma. Based on improved peri-operative outcomes, the use of minimally-invasive techniques is advocated where appropriate.
Background
The decision to undergo non-urgent egg freezing (EF) is complex for patients and providers supporting them. Though prior studies have explored patient perspectives, no study has also included the separate perspectives of providers.
Methods
This qualitative study involved semi-structured individual interviews exploring the decision to undergo EF. Participants included patients considering EF at one academic fertility clinic and providers who counsel patients about EF from across Canada. Data analysis was accomplished using thematic analysis. Data saturation was met after interviewing 13 providers and 12 patients.
Findings
Four themes were identified and explored, illuminating ways in which patients and providers navigate decision-making around EF: (1) patients viewed EF as a ‘back-up plan’ for delaying the decision about whether to have children, while providers were hesitant to present EF in this way given the uncertainty of success; (2) providers viewed ovarian reserve testing as essential while patients believed it unnecessarily complicated the decision; (3) patients and providers cited a need for change in broader societal attitudes regarding EF since social stigma was a significant barrier to decision-making; and (4) commonality and peer support were desired by patients to assist in their decision, although some providers were hesitant to recommend this to patients.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the decision to undergo EF is complex and individual patient values play a significant role. In some areas, there is disconnect between providers and patients in their views on how to navigate EF decision-making, and these should be addressed in discussions between providers and patients to improve shared decision-making.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to understand how Canadian Obstetricians/Gynaecologists (OBGYNs) diagnose and manage adenomyosis. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed via an online survey distributed to 262 OBGYNs at three Canadian universities (University of Toronto, University of Calgary, and McMaster University). Results: A total of 137 responses were obtained out of 262 OBGYNs (52.3%) with a completion rate of 98%. Adenomyosis was a diagnosis in 6%–10% of patients seen by OBGYNs. The most common clinical symptoms included heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) (82.8%) and dysmenorrhea (91.0%). Most participants (83%) used transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) as first-line imaging for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Many respondents (35.8%) indicated that adenomyosis was not associated with infertility or recurrent miscarriage. Treatment considerations for all patients with adenomyosis included levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) (91.8%), hysterectomy (88.8%), expectant management (85.1%), combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC) (83.6%), tranexamic acid (81.3%), gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists (64.2%), depo-provera (64.2%), dienogest (57.5%), and norethisterone acetate (NETA) (40.3%). Treatments for adenomyosis in patients wishing to conceive included expectant management (85.1%), tranexamic acid (79.1%), CHC (44.8%), LNG-IUS (32.8%), and GnRH agonists (35.8%). Excision of adenomyosis would only be offered by 24% of respondents. Uterine artery embolization (UAE) would not be used in the treatment of adenomyosis by 44% of respondents. Finally, 82.8% of respondents would use improvement of clinical symptoms to follow treatment success. Conclusion: Practice varies across Canada despite recent emerging evidence in the diagnosis and management of adenomyosis, highlighting the need for a clinical practice guideline on adenomyosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.