Throughout in utero development, the placenta plays a key role in controlling growth and development. The placenta acts not only as a gatekeeper of nutrient and waste exchange between mother and developing fetus, but also as a regulator of the intrauterine environment. Its functions can be influenced by the environment encountered throughout pregnancy, thereby altering the appropriate genetic programming needed to allow for appropriate fetal growth. Epigenetic alterations related to environmental exposures have been linked to aberrant fetal growth. DNA methylation, which is the best known DNA epigenetic modification, may provide an attractive mechanism linking environmental cues to placental pathology, with consequences for fetal growth and adult life. Alteration of the methylation patterns of genes expressed in the placenta has recently been found to modify gene expression and subsequently impair function of the placenta. Although there is strong evidence to demonstrate that the environment can affect the pattern of DNA methylation of the placenta during fetal development, a direct association between environmental conditions, methylation alterations and gene expression is difficult to confirm. DNA methylation in the placenta has mainly been investigated in the context of imprinted and non-imprinted genes transcription. Several environmental factors have also been assessed in regard to their association with changes to the epigenetic motives of embryonic and extraembryonic tissues and their impact on pregnancy outcome. In this review, we briefly present the available evidence regarding the role of DNA methylation patterns of the placenta on aberrant fetal growth.

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

No abstract

Genetic alterations alone cannot account for the complexity of ovarian cancer. The potential reversibility of epigenetic mechanisms makes them attractive candidates for the prevention and/or treatment of ovarian carcinoma. Detection of the epigenetic signature of each cancer cell may be useful in the identification of candidate biomarkers for disease detection, classification and monitoring and may also facilitate personalized cancer treatment. In ovarian cancer, in addition to other non-gynaecological cancers, two opposite epigenetic phenomena occur. The first involves an overall global decrease in DNA methylation of heterochromatin leading to demethylation of several oncogenes, while the second involves specific CpG island hypermethylation associated with the promoters of tumor suppressor genes. Early studies focused on the methylation patterns of single genes associated with tumorigenesis. However, newer genome-wide methods have identified a group of genes whose regulation is altered by DNA methylation during ovarian cancer progression.

Extrapelvic endometriosis is a rare entity that presents serious challenges to researchers and clinicians. Endometriotic lesions have been reported in every part of the female human body and in some instances in males. Organs that are close to the uterus are more often affected than distant locations. Extrapelvic endometriosis affects a slightly older population of women than pelvic endometriosis. This might lead to the assumption that it takes several years for pelvic endometriosis to “metastasize” outside the pelvis. All current theories of the pathophysiology of endometriosis apply to some extent to the different types of extrapelvic endometriosis. The gastrointestinal tract is the most common location of extrapelvic endometriosis with the urinary system being the second one. However, since sigmoid colon, rectum, and bladder are pelvic organs, extragenital pelvic endometriosis may be a more suitable definition for endometriotic implants related to these organs than extrapelvic endometriosis. The sigmoid colon is the most commonly involved, followed by the rectum, ileum, appendix, and caecum. Most lesions are confined in the serosal layer; however, deeper lesion can alter bowel function and cause symptoms. Bladder and ureteral involvement are the most common sites concerning the urinary system. Unfortunately, ureteral endometriosis is often asymptomatic leading to silent obstructive uropathy and renal failure. Surgical excision of the endometriotic tissue is the ideal treatment for all types of extrapelvic endometriosis. Adjunctive treatment might be useful in selected cases.