Obstetrics and Gynaecology - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item
    No Preview Available
    Pre-Vaccination Human Papillomavirus Genotypes and HPV16 Variants among Women Aged 25 Years or Less with Cervical Cancer
    Jayasinghe, YN ; Tabrizi, S ; Stevens, M ; Leong, TY-M ; Pyman, JR ; Grover, SM ; Garland, S (MDPI, 2023-03)
    BACKGROUND: In 2007, Australia introduced a national human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program. In 2017, the onset of cervical screening changed from 18 to 25 years of age, utilising human papillomavirus (HPV) nucleic acid testing. The objective of the study is to describe the HPV genotypes and HPV16 variants in biopsies from women ≤ 25 years of age with cervical carcinoma (CC) (cases), compared with those aged >25 years (controls), in a pre-vaccination cohort. METHODS: HPV genotyping of archival paraffin blocks (n = 96) was performed using the INNO-LiPA HPV Genotyping assay. HPV16-positive samples were analysed for variants by type-specific PCR spanning L1, E2 and E6 regions. RESULTS: HPV16 was the commonest genotype in cases (54.5%, 12/22) and controls (66.7%, 46/69) (p = 0.30), followed by HPV18 (36.3%, 8/22 vs. 17.3% 12/69, respectively) (p = 0.08). Furthermore, 90% (20/22) of cases and 84.1% (58/69) of controls were positive for HPV16 or 18 (p = 0.42); 100% (22/22) of cases and 95.7% (66/69) of controls had at least one genotype targeted by the nonavalent vaccine (p = 0.3). The majority of HPV16 variants (87.3%, 48/55) were of European lineage. The proportion of unique nucleotide substitutions was significantly higher in cases (83.3%, 10/12) compared with controls (34.1%, 15/44), (p < 0.003, χ2, OR 9.7, 95%CI 1.7-97.7). CONCLUSIONS: Virological factors may account for the differences in CCs observed in younger compared with older women. All CCs in young women in this study had preventable 9vHPV types, which is important messaging for health provider adherence to new cervical screening guidelines.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Australian fertility preservation guidelines for people with cancer 2022: review and recommendations
    Kieu, V ; Stern, C ; Harris, J ; Jayasinghe, Y ; Bradford, N ; Cui, W ; Deans, R ; Hunter, T ; Allingham, C ; Kane, SC ; Lau, LS ; Logan, S ; McLachlan, R ; Neville, K ; Peate, M ; Phillips, M ; Saunders, C ; Tome, M ; Upreti, R ; White, K ; Anazodo, A ; Hart, RJ (WILEY, 2022-12-12)
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Long-term trends of Chlamydia trachomatis in a clinic population at the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne
    Garland, SM ; Subasinghe, AK ; Ahmed, N ; Jayasinghe, Y ; Marceglia, A (WILEY, 2020-02)
    BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (C. trachomatis) prevalence has been reported to be increasing. Whether this is a true increase over time or confounded by increases in testing and/or use of more sensitive assays is to be determined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One laboratory service has been detecting C. trachomatis for the past 30 years within the Royal Women's Hospital Melbourne. We conducted a retrospective audit of records over the period 1986-2016 from a clinic population routinely offered chlamydia screening. These were women presenting for family planning advice (termination of pregnancy, intrauterine device insertion or considered at high risk), who underwent chlamydia testing in the context of various diagnostic assays used over this time period. Assays utilised included culture, enzyme immunoassay (EIA), DNA probe, and nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Non-parametric test for trend was used to determine significant differences between prevalence estimates across ordered groups. Least squares regression was conducted to describe a linear trend matching known data points. RESULTS: Overall, there was no significant change for chlamydia prevalence which was 2.2%, in the 30-year study period (P = 0.7). Over time diagnostic assays changed from culture, to EIA, DNA probe, to the more sensitive NAAT. The bulk of the positives were in women under 25 years of age (57%). CONCLUSION: Chlamydia prevalence has been stable over 30 years, remaining a problem in young women. Screening for those at risk needs underscoring in a national sexual health program.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Recurrent post-coital bleeding: Should colposcopy still be mandatory?
    Tan, JHJ ; Jayasinghe, YL ; Osinski, MJ ; Brotherton, JML ; Wrede, CDH (WILEY, 2020-12)
    BACKGROUND: Colposcopy has been recommended for all women with recurrent post-coital bleeding (PCB) even if their cervical cytology or co-test (involving oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and cytology) are negative. AIMS: To determine the risk of cervical cancer and its precursors among women with recurrent PCB with negative cytology or co-test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of two cohorts of women with PCB referred to a tertiary colposcopy clinic. Cohort (1) (n = 1846) between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2016 (cytology-based screening) and Cohort (2) (n = 215) from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 after introduction of primary HPV screening. RESULTS: In 1217 (65.9%) women in Cohort (1) referred with negative cytology, there was one cancer (0.08%) and 22 high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3)) on histopathology. In Cohort (2), there was no cancer or HSIL in 83 women with negative co-tests (negative for oncogenic HPV and cytology). False-negative cytology after a negative referral cytology or co-test was low with 2% of repeat cytology at initial colposcopy showing possible HSIL or worse. CONCLUSIONS: Women presenting with PCB and negative cytology alone have a low risk of cancer and could have HPV testing before being triaged to colposcopy. We showed that with the assurance of a negative co-test and the low likelihood of false-negative cytology, these women could avoid colposcopy unless cervical cancer is clinically suspected. There is a need for a larger cohort study to substantiate our findings with more precision.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Creating a Global Community of Practice for Oncofertility
    Ataman, LM ; Rodrigues, JK ; Marinho, RM ; Caetano, JPJ ; Chehin, MB ; Alves da Motta, EL ; Serafini, P ; Suzuki, N ; Furui, T ; Takae, S ; Sugishita, Y ; Morishige, K-I ; Almeida-Santos, T ; Melo, C ; Buzaglo, K ; Irwin, K ; Wallace, WH ; Anderson, RA ; Mitchell, RT ; Telfer, EE ; Adiga, SK ; Anazodo, A ; Stern, C ; Sullivan, E ; Jayasinghe, Y ; Orme, L ; Cohn, R ; McLachlan, R ; Deans, R ; Agresta, F ; Gerstl, B ; Ledger, WL ; Robker, RL ; de Meneses e Silva, JM ; Melo e Silva, LHF ; Lunardi, FO ; Lee, JR ; Suh, CS ; De Vos, M ; Van Moer, E ; Stoop, D ; Vloeberghs, V ; Smitz, J ; Tournaye, H ; Wildt, L ; Winkler-Crepaz, K ; Andersen, CY ; Smith, BM ; Smith, K ; Woodruff, TK (LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2020-01)
    Fertility preservation in the cancer setting, known as oncofertility, is a field that requires cross-disciplinary interaction between physicians, basic scientists, clinical researchers, ethicists, lawyers, educators, and religious leaders. Funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Oncofertility Consortium (OC) was formed to be a scientifically grounded, transparent, and altruistic resource, both intellectual and monetary, for building this new field of practice capable of addressing the unique needs of young patients with cancer. The OC has expanded its attention to include other nonmalignant conditions that can threaten fertility, and the work of the OC now extends around the globe, involving partners who together have created a community of shared effort, resources, and practices. The OC creates materials that are translated, disseminated, and amended by all participants in the field, and local programs of excellence have developed worldwide to accelerate the pace and improve the quality of oncofertility research and practice. Here we review the global oncofertility programs and the capacity building activities that strengthen these research and clinical programs, ultimately improving patient care.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Exploring the facilitators and barriers to using an online infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for young women with breast cancer: a qualitative study protocol.
    Edib, Z ; Jayasinghe, Y ; Hickey, M ; Stafford, L ; Anderson, RA ; Su, HI ; Stern, K ; Saunders, C ; Anazodo, A ; Macheras-Magias, M ; Chang, S ; Pang, P ; Agresta, F ; Chin-Lenn, L ; Cui, W ; Pratt, S ; Gorelik, A ; Peate, M (BMJ Journals, 2020-02-10)
    INTRODUCTION: As cancer treatments may impact on fertility, a high priority for young patients with breast cancer is access to evidence-based, personalised information for them and their healthcare providers to guide treatment and fertility-related decisions prior to cancer treatment. Current tools to predict fertility outcomes after breast cancer treatments are imprecise and do not offer individualised prediction. To address the gap, we are developing a novel personalised infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for premenopausal patients with breast cancer that considers current reproductive status, planned chemotherapy and adjuvant endocrine therapy to determine likely post-treatment infertility. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of implementing this FoRECAsT tool into clinical practice by exploring the barriers and facilitators of its use among patients and healthcare providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional exploratory study is being conducted using semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with 15-20 participants each from the following groups: (1) premenopausal patients with breast cancer younger than 40, diagnosed within last 5 years, (2) breast surgeons, (3) breast medical oncologists, (4) breast care nurses (5) fertility specialists and (6) fertility preservation nurses. Patients with breast cancer are being recruited from the joint Breast Service of three affiliated institutions of Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia-Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital, and clinicians are being recruited from across Australia. Interviews are being audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and imported into qualitative data analysis software to facilitate data management and analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee, Australia (HREC number: 2017.163). Confidentiality and privacy are maintained at every stage of the study. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journals, national and international conference presentations, social media, broadcast media, print media, internet and various community/stakeholder engagement activities.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Survey of Fertility Preservation Options Available to Patients With Cancer Around the Globe
    Rashedi, AS ; de Roo, SF ; Ataman, LM ; Edmonds, ME ; Silva, AA ; Scarella, A ; Horbaczewska, A ; Anazodo, A ; Arvas, A ; de Carvalho, BR ; Sartorio, C ; Beerendonk, CCM ; Diaz-Garcia, C ; Suh, CS ; Melo, C ; Andersen, CY ; Motta, E ; Greenblatt, EM ; Van Moer, E ; Zand, E ; Reis, FM ; Sanchez, F ; Terrado, G ; Rodrigues, JK ; de Meneses e Silva, JM ; Smitz, J ; Medrano, J ; Lee, JR ; Winkler-Crepaz, K ; Smith, K ; Ferreira Melo e Silva, LH ; Wildt, L ; Salama, M ; del Mar Andres, M ; Bourlon, MT ; Vega, M ; Chehin, MB ; De Vos, M ; Khrouf, M ; Suzuki, N ; Azmy, O ; Fontoura, P ; Almeida Campos-Junior, PH ; Mallmann, P ; Azambuja, R ; Marinho, RM ; Anderson, RA ; Jach, R ; Antunes, RDA ; Mitchell, R ; Fathi, R ; Adiga, SK ; Takae, S ; Kim, SH ; Romero, S ; Grieco, SC ; Shaulov, T ; Furui, T ; Almeida-Santos, T ; Nelen, W ; Jayasinghe, Y ; Sugishita, Y ; Woodruff, TK (LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2020-01)
    PURPOSE: In the accompanying article, "Analysis of Fertility Preservation Options Available to Patients With Cancer Around the Globe," we showed that specific fertility preservation services may not be offered at various sites around the world because of cultural and legal barriers. We assessed global and regional experiences as well as the legal status of third-party reproduction and adoption to serve as a comprehensive international data set and resource for groups that wish to begin oncofertility interventions. METHODS: We provide data on the legalities of third-party assisted reproductive technologies and other family-building options in the 28 oncofertility-practicing countries surveyed. RESULTS: We found regional and country differences that will be important in the development of tailored resources for physicians and for patient brochures that are sensitive to these local restrictions and cultural norms. CONCLUSION: Because many patients first consult Web-based materials, the formal assessment of the availability of these options provides members of the global oncofertility community with data to which they might otherwise not have ready access to better serve their patients.