BackgroundEndometriosis nodes are observed in extra pelvic locations, particularly in gynaecological scars, with the abdominal wall being one of the most frequent locations. The main objective of the study is to review patient characteristics of cases of endometriosis nodes in gynaecological scars.MethodsA retrospective, observational and descriptive study with a cohort of patients from Hospital 12 de Octubre was conducted from January 2000 to January 2012. We analysed all of the patients who presented with an endometriosis node in a gynaecological scar presentation who had undergone surgery in that period. Descriptive data were collected and analysed.ResultsA total of 17 patients with an anatomopathological diagnosis of an endometriosis node in a gynaecological scar were found. The following variables were studied: the age at diagnosis (32.5 years +/− 5.5 years), personal and obstetric history, time from surgery to diagnosis (4.2 years +/− 3.4 years), symptoms (a painful mass that grows during menstruation is the most frequent symptom in our patients), technical analyses by computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) or fine needle aspiration (FNA) (77% of the patients), node size (2.5 cm +/− 1.1 cm) and location (caesarean scar, 82%; episiotomy scar, 11.7%; and laparoscopic surgery port, 5.8%), involvement of adjacent structures (29% of the patients), treatment (exeresis with a security margin in all the patients) and other endometriosis locations (14% of the patients).ConclusionsA high level of suspicion is required to diagnose gynaecological scar endometriosis, which should be suspected in the differential diagnosis of scar masses in reproductive-aged women.Several theories have been proposed to explain the formation of endometriosis nodes in extrauterine localizations. The two of them that seem to be more plausible are the metaplasia and transport theories.Imaging with ultrasound, CT and MR facilitate the diagnosis. FNA could be used for preoperative diagnosis.Treatment must be by node resection with a security margin. In some cases, surgery could be combined with hormonal treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12905-015-0170-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAlthough the inclusion of the HPV vaccine has been registered in Spain since 2007, vaccination rates are lower than expected. The patients wish to be vaccinated is heavily influenced by information they have received from many source. The Knowledge of primary health care professionals affects the information provided to patients and is fundamental in the decision making. The aim of this study is to assess the opinions of primary health care professionals on the vaccine against HPV and their knowledge about HPV infection and its links to with gynecological and oropharyngeal cancer.MethodsCross-sectional study. A 19-item survey was drawn up. It included questions on basic aspects of HPV infection and marketed vaccines, personal opinion about the inclusion in the immunization schedules and their level of prescription and recommendation to patients in their clinical practice. From October 2013 to December 2013, 607 surveys were distributed among 20 primary health centers affiliated to the University Hospital 12 de Octubre. The results were analyzed using SPSS statistical package.ResultsOne hundred sixty four successfully completed surveys were obtained for analysis. 89 % of the professionals knew about the relationship between HPV infection and cervical cancer, 57.3 % did not know any of the serotypes against which vaccines are targeted; 40.4 % believed that there is insufficient data to support the commercialization of the vaccines. Of these, 65.7 % argue that there is no data of its long-term effectiveness, 13.4 % that there is no data as to its side effects, 13.4 % believed that the cost effectiveness is not worthwhile.ConclusionsThere is a strong controversy among health professionals regarding the marketing and inclusion of HPV vaccine in immunization schedules. However, the knowledge of the primary care health professionals on key aspects of infection and vaccine protection are insufficient. The training of professionals in vaccination, cervical pathology and HPV infection should be improved to provide objective information on the use as this vaccine for patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Background. Axillary surgical management in patients with node-positive breast cancer at the time of diagnosis converted to negative nodes through neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) remains unclear. Removal of more than two sentinel nodes (SLNs) in these patients may decrease the false negative rate (FNR) of sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNBs). We aim to analyse the detection rate (DR) and the FNR of SLNB assessment according to the number of SLNs removed. Methods. A retrospective study was performed from October 2012 to December 2018. Patients with invasive breast cancer who had a clinically node-positive disease at diagnosis and with a complete axillary response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were selected. Patients included underwent SLNB and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after NAC. The SLN was considered positive if any residual disease was detected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the clinicopathologic features and the results of SLNB and ALND. The DR of SLNB was defined as the number of patients with successful identification of SLN. Presence of residual disease in ALND and negative SLN was considered false negative. Results. A total of 368 patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent surgery after complete NAC were studied. Of them, 85 patients met the eligibility criteria and were enrolled in the study. The mean age at diagnosis was 50.8 years. Systematic lymphadenectomy was performed in all patients, with an average of 10 lymph nodes removed. The DR of SLNB was 92.9%, and the FNR was 19.1. The median number of SLNs removed was 3, and at least, three SLNs were obtained in 42 patients (53.2%). When at least three sentinel nodes were removed, the FNR decreased to 8.7%. Conclusions. In this cohort, the SLN assessment was associated with an adequate DR and a high FNR. Removing three or more SLNs decreased the FNR from 19.1% to 8.7%. Complementary approaches may be considered for axillary lymph node staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The study was approved by our institution’s ethics committee (Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain) (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCEI:20/0048).

No abstract

ObjectiveIt has been suggested that the manipulation of neoplastic tissue during hysteroscopy may lead to dissemination of tumor cells into the peritoneal cavity and worsen prognosis and overall survival. The goal of this study was to assess the oncological safety comparing hysteroscopy to Pipelle blind biopsy in the presurgical diagnosis of patients with endometrial cancer.MethodsWe performed a retrospective multicentric study among patients who had received primary surgical treatment for endometrial cancer. A multivariate statistical analysis model was used to compare relapse and survival rates in patients who had been evaluated preoperatively either by hysteroscopy or Pipelle biopsy. The relapse rate, disease-free survival, and overall survival were assessed as the main outcomes. The histological type, tumor size, myometrial invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, surgical approach, use of a uterine manipulator, and adjuvant treatment were also included in the analysis.ResultsA total of 1731 women from 15 centers were included: 1044 in the hysteroscopy group and 687 in the Pipelle sampling group. 225 patients relapsed during the 10 year follow-up period: 139 (13.3%) in the hysteroscopy group and 86 (12.4%) in the Pipelle sampling group. There is no evidence of an association between the use of hysteroscopy as a diagnostic method and relapse rate (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.66; p=0.16), lower disease-free survival (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.66; p=0.15), or overall survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; p=0.76).ConclusionHysteroscopy is a safe diagnostic method for patients with endometrial cancer with no impact on oncological outcomes when compared with sampling by Pipelle.

No abstract