Objective: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being used for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT). However, there is limited evidence of the efficacy of DOACs for the treatment of gynecological CAT. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of edoxaban for the treatment of gynecological CAT using Japanese real-world data. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of patients with 371 gynecological cancer who received edoxaban or vitamin K antagonist (VKA) between January 2011 and December 2018. Results: Altogether, 211 and 160 patients were treated with edoxaban and VKA, respectively. Fourteen patients (6.8%) in the edoxaban group and 22 (13.8%) in the VKA group showed recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Cumulative VTE recurrence was not significantly different between the 2 groups (p=0.340). Adverse events occurred in 15 (7.1%) and 11 (6.9%) patients in the edoxaban and VKA groups, respectively (p=0.697). Subgroup analysis of the edoxaban and VKA groups according to different tumor types, including ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancer, showed equivalent outcomes in terms of VTE recurrence and adverse events. Patients without pulmonary embolism (PE) were mostly omitted from initial unfractionated heparin (UFH) therapy prior to administration of edoxaban. However, this did not increase the recurrence of VTE. Conclusion This study confirmed that edoxaban is effective and safe for the treatment of gynecological CAT. This finding was consistent for different types of gynecological cancer. Additionally, initial UFH therapy prior to the administration of edoxaban may be unnecessary for patients without PE.

Objective: This study compared the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin plus bevacizumab (ddTC+Bev) with ddTC for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 134 patients who received ddTC+Bev or ddTC as first-line chemotherapy for stage III–IV ovarian cancer. Progressionfree survival as primary endpoint of this study was compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to analyze prognostic factors, and the frequency of adverse events was examined using the χ 2 test. Results: We categorized 134 patients in the ddTC+Bev (n=57) and ddTC (n=77) groups who started treatment at four related institutions from November 2013 to December 2017.No patients used poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as the first line maintenance therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) of the ddTC+Bev group had a significantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (hazard ratio [HR]=0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.32–0.79; p<0.003). Multivariate analysis showed that ddTC+Bev regimen was a prognostic factor. However, intergroup comparison using PSM revealed that the PFS of the ddTC+Bev group had a nonsignificantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (HR=0.70; 95% CI=0.41–1.20; p=0.189). Few adverse events above G3 were noted for ddTC+Bev, which were sufficiently tolerable. Conclusion This study could not demonstrate that adding Bev to ddTC improves prognosis.Further studies with more cases are warranted.

Objective: This study compared the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin plus bevacizumab (ddTC+Bev) with ddTC for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 134 patients who received ddTC+Bev or ddTC as first-line chemotherapy for stage III–IV ovarian cancer. Progressionfree survival as primary endpoint of this study was compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to analyze prognostic factors, and the frequency of adverse events was examined using the χ 2 test. Results: We categorized 134 patients in the ddTC+Bev (n=57) and ddTC (n=77) groups who started treatment at four related institutions from November 2013 to December 2017.No patients used poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as the first line maintenance therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) of the ddTC+Bev group had a significantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (hazard ratio [HR]=0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.32–0.79; p<0.003). Multivariate analysis showed that ddTC+Bev regimen was a prognostic factor. However, intergroup comparison using PSM revealed that the PFS of the ddTC+Bev group had a nonsignificantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (HR=0.70; 95% CI=0.41–1.20; p=0.189). Few adverse events above G3 were noted for ddTC+Bev, which were sufficiently tolerable. Conclusion This study could not demonstrate that adding Bev to ddTC improves prognosis.Further studies with more cases are warranted.

Objective: This study compared the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin plus bevacizumab (ddTC+Bev) with ddTC for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 134 patients who received ddTC+Bev or ddTC as first-line chemotherapy for stage III–IV ovarian cancer. Progressionfree survival as primary endpoint of this study was compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to analyze prognostic factors, and the frequency of adverse events was examined using the χ 2 test. Results: We categorized 134 patients in the ddTC+Bev (n=57) and ddTC (n=77) groups who started treatment at four related institutions from November 2013 to December 2017.No patients used poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as the first line maintenance therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) of the ddTC+Bev group had a significantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (hazard ratio [HR]=0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.32–0.79; p<0.003). Multivariate analysis showed that ddTC+Bev regimen was a prognostic factor. However, intergroup comparison using PSM revealed that the PFS of the ddTC+Bev group had a nonsignificantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (HR=0.70; 95% CI=0.41–1.20; p=0.189). Few adverse events above G3 were noted for ddTC+Bev, which were sufficiently tolerable. Conclusion This study could not demonstrate that adding Bev to ddTC improves prognosis.Further studies with more cases are warranted.

Pregnancies achieved by assisted reproduction technologies, particularly by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures, are susceptible to genetic risks inherent to the male population treated with ICSI and additional risks inherent to this innovative procedure. The documented, as well as the theoretical, risks are discussed in the present review study. These risks mainly represent that consequences of the genetic abnormalities underlying male subfertility (or infertility) and might become stimulators for the development of novel approaches and applications in the treatment of infertility. In addition, risks with a polygenic background appearing at birth as congenital anomalies and other theoretical or stochastic risks are discussed. Recent data suggest that assisted reproductive technology might also affect epigenetic characteristics of the male gamete, the female gamete, or might have an impact on early embryogenesis. It might be also associated with an increased risk for genomic imprinting abnormalities.
Animals ; Child, Preschool ; Chromosome Aberrations ; Chromosome Deletion ; Congenital Abnormalities ; genetics ; Epigenesis, Genetic ; Female ; Genomic Imprinting ; HIV Infections ; transmission ; Haploidy ; Humans ; Infant ; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical ; Infertility, Male ; genetics ; Klinefelter Syndrome ; genetics ; Male ; Pregnancy ; Preimplantation Diagnosis ; Risk ; Sex Chromosome Aberrations ; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic ; adverse effects ; Spermatogenesis ; genetics ; Translocation, Genetic ; genetics ; X Chromosome ; genetics ; XYY Karyotype ; genetics