Endometriosis is a chronic, inflammatory disease affecting more than 170 million women worldwide and up to 10% of women of reproductive age. As a consequence of inflammatory reaction and infiltration of anatomic structures, endometriosis can cause “pain symptoms” including dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, dysuria, and chronic pelvic pain. In this review, we summarized the impact of endometriosis on quality of life in all its aspects including sexual life, work, and social relationships. The data research was conducted using web-based search engines and/or various electronic research databases querying for all articles related to endometriosis and quality of life from the inception of the database up to February 2020. Endometriosis has not only physical but also psychological effects, causing depression, anxiety, and compromising social relationships. Furthermore, endometriosis negatively impacts sexual life and social relationships. At last, the economic burden of endometriosis should not be underestimated, both individually and for the community, as this pathology leads to a loss of productivity at work and large use of health resources. Thus, endometriosis-related symptoms control women’s lives compromising the quality of life in all aspects. In this review, we summarized the impact of endometriosis on various aspects of women’s lives.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background The Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) groups has identified four molecular prognostic groups of endometrial cancer (EC): POLE-mutated (POLE-mt), mismatch repair-deficient (MMR-d), p53-abnormal (p53-abn), p53-wild-type (p53-wt). These groups might have different pathogenesis and risk factors, and might occur in different phenotypes of patients. However, these data are still lacking. Objective To provide a clinical characterization of the ProMisE groups of EC. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching seven electronic databases from their inception to December 2020, for all studies reporting clinical characteristics of EC patients in each ProMisE group. Pooled means of age and BMI and pooled prevalence of FIGO stage I and adjuvant treatment in each ProMisE group were calculated. Results Six studies with 1, 879 women were included in the systematic review. Pooled means (with standard error) and prevalence values were: in the MMR-d group, age = 66.5 ± 0.6; BMI = 30.6 ± 1.2; stage I = 72.6%; adjuvant treatment = 47.3%; in the POLE-mt group, age = 58.6 ± 2.7; BMI = 27.2 ± 0.9; stage I = 93.7%; adjuvant treatment = 53.6%; in the p53-wt group, age = 64.2 ± 1.9; BMI = 32.3 ± 1.4; stage I = 80.5%; adjuvant treatment = 45.3%; in the p53-abn group, age = 71.1 ± 0.5; BMI = 29.1 ± 0.5; stage I = 50.8%; adjuvant treatment = 64.4%. Conclusion The ProMisE groups identify different phenotypes of patients. The POLE-mt group included the youngest women, with the lower BMI and the highest prevalence of stage I. The p53-wt group included patients with the highest BMI. The p53-abn group included the oldest women, with the highest prevalence of adjuvant treatment and the lowest prevalence of stage I. The MMR-d group showed intermediate values among the ProMisE groups for all clinical features.

Objectives To explore perinatal outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2)‐vaccinated pregnant women compared with unvaccinated counterparts. Methods Search was conducted using Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, MEDLINE, Embase, OVID, and Cochrane Library as electronic databases. We included observational studies evaluating pregnant women undergoing SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination and compared pregnancy and perinatal outcomes with those in unvaccinated women. Categorical variables were assessed using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas for continuous variables, the results were expressed as mean difference with their 95% CI. All analyses were performed by adopting the random effect model of DerSimonian and Laird. Results There was no difference in the probability of having a small‐for‐gestational‐age fetus (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85–1.09; P = 0.570), but we observed a reduced probability of a non‐reassuring fetal monitoring, a reduced gestational age at delivery, and a reduced probability of premature delivery in vaccinated pregnant women versus unvaccinated ones. Conclusion The probability of small for gestational age is similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women, and the former also had a slightly reduced rate of premature delivery.

No abstract

Background The COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread in Italy since February 2020, inducing the government to call for lockdown of any activity, apart primary needs, during the months March–May 2020. During the lockdown, a reduction of admissions and hospitalizations for ischemic diseases was noticed. Purpose of this study was to observe if there has been the same reduction trend in Accident & Emergency (A&E) unit admissions also for obstetric-gynecological conditions. Methods Medical records and electronic clinical databases were searched for all patients who were admitted to the obstetric A&E department or hospitalized at the Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit of University hospital of Naples Federico II, during the quarter March–May in the years 2019 and 2020. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of monthly admission to the obstetric A&E department and hospitalization of the year 2020 was compared with that of the year 2019, using the unpaired T test with α error set to 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results Admissions were 1483 in the year 2020 and 1786 in 2019. Of total, 1225 (37.5%) women were hospitalized: 583 in the year 2020, 642 in 2019. Mean ± SD of patients monthly admitted to our obstetric A&E department was 494 ± 33.7 in the year 2020, and 595.3 ± 30.9 in 2019, with a mean difference of − 101.3 (95% CI − 103.5 to − 99.1; p < 0.0001). Mean ± SD of patients monthly hospitalized to our department was 194 ± 19.1 in the year 2020, 213.7 ± 4.7 in 2019, with a mean difference of − 19.7 (95% CI − 23.8 to − 15.6; p < 0.0001). Conclusion A significant decrease in the mean of monthly admissions and hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to the previous year was found also for obstetric–gynecological conditions. Further studies are necessary to assess COVID-19 impact and to take the most appropriate countermeasures.

ObjectiveTo assess the effects of prasterone compared with hyaluronic acid on symptoms of mild to moderate urinary urgency in women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause.MethodsThis is an observational prospective cohort study. A total of 58 postmenopausal women were enrolled (from December 2019 to May 2021). Overactive Bladder Screener questionnaire, Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Short Form, and International Quality of Life questionnaire were used.ResultsFifty-eight women, 29 (50%) and 29 (50%), were treated with prasterone and hyaluronic acid for 12 weeks, respectively. At the end of the study, 26 (89.7%) versus 3 (10.3%) women reported an improvement (Patient Global Impression of Improvement score ≤3) of the symptoms in the prasterone versus hyaluronic acid group. According to the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Short Form, no statistically significant difference was recorded before treatment between the prasterone and hyaluronic acid groups (median, 12 [6-12] vs 11 [8-12]; P = 0.8). Conversely, a statistically significant difference was recorded after treatment between the two groups (median, 8 [5-11] vs 10 [8-11]; P = 0.03). According to the International Quality of Life, a statistically significantly lower median score was recorded in the prasterone compared with the hyaluronic acid group, before (73 [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-81] vs 89 [IQR, 67-94]; P < 0.01) and after (78 [IQR, 65-86] vs 87 [IQR, 72-99]; P = 0.04) treatment.ConclusionsThe current observational study supports the hypothesis that prasterone might improve the severity of urinary urge incontinence in this set of women. However, these results need to be confirmed in further studies with a controlled design and a larger population.