Advertisement

Gynecologic cancer in pregnancy

      Highlights

      • Cancer affects 1 in 1000 pregnancies.
      • Diagnostic workup for cancer must be carefully selected and interpreted in pregnancy.
      • Cervical cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy diagnosed in pregnancy.
      • Surgery and chemotherapy can be appropriately used with preservation of pregnancy.

      Abstract

      Cancer complicates 1 in 1000 pregnancies. Multidisciplinary consensus comprised of Gynecologic Oncology, Pathology, Neonatology, Radiology, Anesthesiology, Maternal Fetal Medicine, and Social Work should be convened. Pregnancy provides an opportunity for cervical cancer screening, with deliberate delays in treatment permissible for early stage carcinoma. Vaginal delivery is contraindicated in the presence of gross lesion(s) and radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy at cesarean delivery is recommended. Women with locally advanced and metastatic/recurrent disease should commence treatment at diagnosis with chemoradiation and systemic therapy, respectively; neoadjuvant chemotherapy to permit gestational advancement may be considered in select cases. Most adnexal masses are benign and resolve by the second trimester. Persistent, asymptomatic, benign-appearing masses can be managed conservatively; surgery, if indicated, is best deferred to 15–20 weeks, with laparoscopy preferable over laparotomy whenever possible. Benign and malignant germ cell tumors and borderline tumors are occasionally encountered, with unilateral adnexectomy and preservation of the uterus and contralateral ovary being the rule. Epithelial ovarian cancer is exceedingly rare. Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging lack ionizing radiation and can be employed to evaluate disease extent. Tumor markers, including CA-125, AFP, LDH, inhibin-B, and even CEA and ßhCG may be informative. If required, chemotherapy can be administered following organogenesis during the second and third trimesters. Because platinum and other anti-neoplastic agents cross the placenta, chemotherapy should be withheld after 34 weeks to avoid neonatal myelosuppression. Bevacizumab, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and PARP inhibitors should be avoided throughout pregnancy. Although antenatal glucocorticoids to facilitate fetal pulmonary maturation and amniotic fluid index assessment can be considered, there is no demonstrable benefit of tocolytics, antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring, and/or amniocentesis. Endometrial, vulvar, and vaginal cancer in pregnancy are curiosities, although leiomyosarcoma and the dreaded twin fetus/hydatidiform mole have been reported. For gynecologic malignancies, pregnancy does not impart aggressive clinical behavior and/or worse prognosis.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gynecologic Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Smith L.H.
        • Danielsen B.
        • Allen M.E.
        • Cress R.
        Cancer associated with obstetric delivery: results of linkage with the California cancer registry.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003; 189: 1128-1135https://doi.org/10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00537-4
        • Voulgaris E.
        • Pentheroudakis G.
        • Pavlidis N.
        Cancer and pregnancy: a comprehensive review.
        Surg. Oncol. 2011; 20: e175-e185https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2011.06.002
        • Michael C.W.
        • Esfahani F.M.
        Pregnancy-related changes: a retrospective review of 278 cervical smears.
        Diagn. Cytopathol. 1997; 17: 99-107https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0339(199708)17:2<99::aid-dc4>3.0.co;2-j
        • Arias-Stella J.
        The Arias-Stella reaction: facts and fancies four decades after.
        Adv. Anat. Pathol. 2002; 9: 12-23https://doi.org/10.1097/00125480-200201000-00003
        • Insinga R.P.
        • Glass A.G.
        • Rush B.B.
        Diagnoses and outcomes in cervical cancer screening: a population-based study.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004; 191: 105-113https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.01.043
      1. Fader AN, Alward EK, Niederhauser A, et al. Cervical dysplasia in pregnancy: a multi-institutional evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(2):113.e1–113.e6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.016

        • Tam K.F.
        • Cheung A.N.Y.
        • Szeto E.
        • Ngan H.Y.S.
        Atypical glandular cells diagnosed during pregnancy and the postpartum period: a retrospective analysis.
        Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2011; 155: 213-216https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.009
        • Bai H.
        • Liu J.
        • Wang Q.
        • et al.
        Oncological and reproductive outcomes of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix managed with the loop electrosurgical excision procedure.
        BMC Cancer. 2018; 18: 461https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4386-6
        • Tam K.F.
        • Cheung A.N.Y.
        • Liu K.L.
        • et al.
        A retrospective review on atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (agus) using the Bethesda 2001 classification.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2003; 91: 603-607https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.08.029
        • Hacker N.F.
        • Berek J.S.
        • Lagasse L.D.
        • Charles E.H.
        • Savage E.W.
        • Moore J.G.
        Carcinoma of the cervix associated with pregnancy.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 1982; 59: 735-746
        • Economos K.
        • Perez Veridiano N.
        • Delke I.
        • Collado M.L.
        • Tancer M.L.
        Abnormal cervical cytology in pregnancy: a 17-year experience.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 1993; 81: 915-918
        • Mailath-Pokorny M.
        • Schwameis R.
        • Grimm C.
        • Reinthaller A.
        • Polterauer S.
        Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in pregnancy: postpartum histo-pathologic outcome and review of the literature.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16: 74https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0861-8
        • Siristatidis C.
        • Vitoratos N.
        • Michailidis E.
        • et al.
        The role of the mode of delivery in the alteration of intrapartum pathological cervical cytologic findings during the postpartum period.
        Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 2002; 23: 358-360
        • Siegler E.
        • Lavie O.
        • Amit A.
        • et al.
        Should the risk of invasive cancer in pregnancy and the safety of loop electrosurgical excision procedure during the first 15 weeks change our practice?.
        J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017; 21: 299-303https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000346
        • Averette H.E.
        • Nasser N.
        • Yankow S.L.
        • Little W.A.
        Cervical conization in pregnancy: analysis of 180 operations.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1970; 106: 543-549https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(70)90039-6
        • Rogers R.S.
        • Williams J.H.
        The impact of the suspicious Papanicolaou smear on pregnancy: a study of nationwide attitudes and maternal and perinatal complications.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1967; 98: 488-496https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(67)90101-9
        • Bhatla N.
        • Berek J.S.
        • Fredes M.C.
        • et al.
        Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2019; 145: 129-135https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12749
        • Sorosky J.I.
        • Squatrito R.
        • Ndubisi B.U.
        • et al.
        Stage I squamous cell cervical carcinoma in pregnancy: planned delay in therapy awaiting fetal maturity.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 1995; 59: 207-210https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1995.0009
        • Tsuritani M.
        • Watanabe Y.
        • Kotani Y.
        • Kataoka T.
        • Ueda H.
        • Hoshiai H.
        Retrospective evaluation of CO2 laser conization in pregnant women with carcinoma in situ or microinvasive carcinoma.
        Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2010; 65: 24https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ogx.0000367512.95546.93
        • Yahata T.
        • Numata M.
        • Kashima K.
        • et al.
        Conservative treatment of stage IA1 adenocarcinoma of the cervix during pregnancy.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2008; 109: 49-52https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.016
      2. Bigelow CA, Horowitz NS, Goodman A, Growdon WB, Del Carmen M, Kaimal AJ. Management and outcome of cervical cancer diagnosed in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(3):276.e1–276.e6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.034

        • Căpîlna M.E.
        • Szabo B.
        • Becsi J.
        • Ioanid N.
        • Moldovan B.
        Radical trachelectomy performed during pregnancy: a review of the literature.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc. 2016; 26: 758-762https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000655
        • Sood A.K.
        • Sorosky J.I.
        • Mayr N.
        • et al.
        Radiotherapeutic management of cervical carcinoma that complicates pregnancy.
        Cancer. 1997; 80: 1073-1078https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19970915)80:6<1073::aid-cncr9>3.0.co;2-a
        • Alouini S.
        • Rida K.
        • Mathevet P.
        Cervical cancer complicating pregnancy: implications of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2008; 108: 472-477https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.12.006
        • Tewari K.
        • Cappuccini F.
        • Gambino A.
        • Kohler M.F.
        • Pecorelli S.
        • DiSaia P.J.
        Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced cervical carcinoma in pregnancy: a report of two cases and review of issues specific to the management of cervical carcinoma in pregnancy including planned delay of therapy.
        Cancer. 1998; 82: 1529-1534https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19980415)82:8<1529::aid-cncr15>3.0.co;2-6
        • Ricci C.
        • Scambia G.
        • Vincenzo R.D.
        Locally advanced cervical cancer in pregnancy: overcoming the challenge. A case series and review of the literature.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2016; 26: 1490-1496https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000795
        • Song Y.
        • Liu Y.
        • Lin M.
        • Sheng B.
        • Zhu X.
        Efficacy of neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy during the second and third trimester of pregnancy in women with cervical cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Drug Des Devel Ther. 2018; 13: 79-102https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S186966
        • Masetti R.
        • Vendemini F.
        • Zama D.
        • Biagi C.
        • Pession A.
        • Locatelli F.
        Acute myeloid leukemia in infants: biology and treatment.
        Front. Pediatr. 2015; 3https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2015.00037
        • Kitagawa R.
        • Katsumata N.
        • Shibata T.
        • et al.
        Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus cisplatin in metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer: the open-label randomized phase III trial JCOG0505.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2015; 33: 2129-2135https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.58.4391
        • Johnson D.B.
        • Sullivan R.J.
        • Menzies A.M.
        Immune checkpoint inhibitors in challenging populations.
        Cancer. 2017; 123: 1904-1911https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30642
      3. Carocha A, Pedroso C, Correia L, Gomes A, Jorge A. Glassy Cell Carcinoma of the Cervix and Metastasis in Episiotomy Scar: A Case Report. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2015;19(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000054

        • Sood A.
        • Sorosky J.
        • Mayr N.
        • Anderson B.
        • Buller R.
        • Niebyl J.
        Cervical cancer diagnosed shortly after pregnancy: prognostic variables and delivery routes.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 2000; 95: 832-838https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(00)00789-4
        • Goh W.
        • Bohrer J.
        • Zalud I.
        Management of the adnexal mass in pregnancy.
        Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 26: 49-53https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000048
        • Bonde A.A.
        • Korngold E.K.
        • Foster B.R.
        • et al.
        Radiological appearances of corpus luteum cysts and their imaging mimics.
        Abdom Radiol. 2016; 41: 2270-2282https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0780-1
        • Whitecar P.
        • Turner S.
        • Higby K.
        Adnexal masses in pregnancy: a review of 130 cases undergoing surgical management.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1999; 181: 19-24https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70429-1
        • Webb K.
        • Sakhel K.
        • Chauhan S.
        • Abuhamad A.
        Adnexal mass during pregnancy: a review.
        Am. J. Perinatol. 2015; 32: 1010-1016https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1549216
        • Liu Y.-X.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Huang J.-F.
        • Wang L.
        Meta-analysis comparing the safety of laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for suspected adnexal mass during the second trimester.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2017; 136: 272-279https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12069
      4. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and Management of Adnexal Masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(5). doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768

        • Sherard G.B.
        • Hodson C.A.
        • Williams H.J.
        • Semer D.A.
        • Hadi H.A.
        • Tait D.L.
        Adnexal masses and pregnancy: a 12-year experience.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003; 189: 358-362https://doi.org/10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00731-2
        • Perera D.
        • Prabhakar H.
        Imaging of the adnexal mass.
        Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 58: 28-46https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0000000000000083
        • Bailleux M.
        • Bernard J.P.
        • Benachi A.
        • Deffieux X.
        Ovarian endometriosis during pregnancy: a series of 53 endometriomas.
        Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2017; 209: 100-104https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.09.037
        • Burandt E.
        • Young R.
        Pregnancy Luteoma: a study of 20 cases on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of its description by Dr William H. Sternberg, with an emphasis on the common presence of follicle-like spaces and their diagnostic implications.
        Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2014; 38: 239-244https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000100
        • Ugaki H.
        • Enomoto T.
        • Tokugawa Y.
        • Kimura T.
        Luteoma-induced fetal virilization.
        J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2009; 35: 991-993https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2009.01046.x
        • Masarie K.
        • Katz V.
        • Balderston K.
        Pregnancy luteomas: clinical presentations and management strategies.
        Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2010; 65: 575-582https://doi.org/10.1097/OGX.0b013e3181f8c41d
        • Prat J.
        Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2014; 124: 1-5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.10.001
        • Leiserowitz G.S.
        • Xing G.
        • Cress R.
        • Brahmbhatt B.
        • Dalrymple J.L.
        • Smith L.H.
        Adnexal masses in pregnancy: how often are they malignant?.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2006; 101: 315-321https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.10.022
        • Kodama M.
        • Grubbs B.H.
        • Blake E.A.
        • et al.
        Feto-maternal outcomes of pregnancy complicated by ovarian malignant germ cell tumor: a systematic review of literature.
        Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2014; 181: 145-156https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.07.047
        • Horbelt D.
        • Delmore J.
        • Meisel R.
        • Cho S.
        • Roberts D.
        • Logan D.
        Mixed germ cell malignancy of the ovary concurrent with pregnancy.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 1994; 84: 662-664
        • Sheiko M.C.
        • Hart W.R.
        Ovarian germinoma (dysgerminoma) with elevated serum lactic dehydrogenase: case report and review of literature.
        Cancer. 1982; 49: 994-998https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19820301)49:5<994::aid-cncr2820490524>3.0.co;2-l
      5. Ray-Coquard I, Morice P, Lorusso D, et al. Non-epithelial ovarian cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2018;29(Suppl 4):iv1-iv18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy001

        • Fonseca A.
        • Frazier A.L.
        • Shaikh F.
        Germ cell tumors in adolescents and young adults.
        J Oncol Pract. August 2019; https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.19.00190
        • Elit L.
        • Bocking A.
        • Kenyon C.
        • Natale R.
        An endodermal sinus tumor diagnosed in pregnancy: case report and review of the literature.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 1999; 72: 123-127https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1998.5190
        • Han J.-Y.
        • Nava-Ocampo A.A.
        • Kim T.-J.
        • Shim J.-U.
        • Park C.-T.
        Pregnancy outcome after prenatal exposure to bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin for malignant ovarian germ cell tumors: report of 2 cases.
        Reprod Toxicol Elmsford N. 2005; 19: 557-561https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2004.11.002
        • Torre L.A.
        • Trabert B.
        • DeSantis C.E.
        • et al.
        Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018.
        CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018; 68: 284-296https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21456
        • Young R.H.
        • Dudley A.G.
        • Scully R.E.
        Granulosa cell, Sertoli-Leydig cell, and unclassified sex cord-stromal tumors associated with pregnancy: a clinicopathological analysis of thirty-six cases.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 1984; 18: 181-205https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(84)90026-x
        • Mom C.H.
        • Engelen M.J.A.
        • Willemse P.H.B.
        • et al.
        Granulosa cell tumors of the ovary: the clinical value of serum inhibin A and B levels in a large single center cohort.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2007; 105: 365-372https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.12.034
        • Silver H.M.
        • Lambert-Messerlian G.M.
        • Star J.A.
        • Hogan J.
        • Canick J.A.
        Comparison of maternal serum total activin A and inhibin A in normal, preeclamptic, and nonproteinuric gestationally hypertensive pregnancies.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1999; 180: 1131-1137https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70606-X
        • Blake E.A.
        • Carter C.M.
        • Kashani B.N.
        • et al.
        Feto-maternal outcomes of pregnancy complicated by ovarian sex-cord stromal tumor: a systematic review of literature.
        Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2014; 175: 1-7https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.025
        • Mooney J.
        • Silva E.
        • Tornos C.
        • Gershenson D.
        Unusual features of serous neoplasms of low malignant potential during pregnancy.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 1997; 65: 30-35https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1996.4592
        • Blake E.A.
        • Kodama M.
        • Yunokawa M.
        • et al.
        Feto-maternal outcomes of pregnancy complicated by epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review of literature.
        Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2015; 186: 97-105https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.01.010
        • Han S.N.
        • Lotgerink A.
        • Gziri M.M.
        • Van Calsteren K.
        • Hanssens M.
        • Amant F.
        Physiologic variations of serum tumor markers in gynecological malignancies during pregnancy: a systematic review.
        BMC Med. 2012; 10: 86https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-86
        • Ercan Ş.
        • Kaymaz Ö.
        • Yücel N.
        • Orçun A.
        Serum concentrations of CA 125, CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and CEA in normal pregnancy: a longitudinal study.
        Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2012; 285: 579-584https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2025-4
        • Randall L.M.
        • Pothuri B.
        • Swisher E.M.
        • et al.
        Multi-disciplinary summit on genetics services for women with gynecologic cancers: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology White Paper.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2017; 146: 217-224https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.06.002
        • Ferrandina G.
        • Distefano M.
        • Testa A.
        • De Vincenzo R.
        • Scambia G.
        Management of an advanced ovarian cancer at 15 weeks of gestation: case report and literature review.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2005; 97: 693-696https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.02.011
        • Melamed A.
        • Rizzo A.E.
        • Nitecki R.
        • et al.
        All-cause mortality after fertility-sparing surgery for stage I epithelial ovarian cancer.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 130: 71-79https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002102
        • Watanabe T.
        • Soeda S.
        • Nishiyama H.
        • et al.
        Clinical and reproductive outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery in stage I epithelial ovarian cancer.
        Mol Clin Oncol. 2020; 12: 44-50https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2019.1954
        • Nasioudis D.
        • Chapman-Davis E.
        • Frey M.K.
        • Witkin S.S.
        • Holcomb K.
        Could fertility-sparing surgery be considered for women with early stage ovarian clear cell carcinoma?.
        J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017; 28e71https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e71
        • Wright A.A.
        • Bohlke K.
        • Armstrong D.K.
        • et al.
        Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer: society of gynecologic oncology and american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline.
        J. Clin. Oncol. 2016; 34: 3460-3473https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.68.6907
        • Zheng X.
        • Zhu Y.
        • Zhao Y.
        • Feng S.
        • Zheng C.
        Taxanes in combination with platinum derivatives for the treatment of ovarian cancer during pregnancy: a literature review.
        Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2017; 55: 753-760https://doi.org/10.5414/CP202995
        • Pauli S.A.
        • Tang H.
        • Wang J.
        • et al.
        The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGF receptor 2 pathway is critical for blood vessel survival in corpora Lutea of pregnancy in the rodent.
        Endocrinology. 2005; 146: 1301-1311https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2004-0765
        • Cross S.N.
        • Ratner E.
        • Rutherford T.J.
        • Schwartz P.E.
        • Norwitz E.R.
        Bevacizumab-mediated interference with VEGF signaling is sufficient to induce a preeclampsia-like syndrome in nonpregnant women.
        Rev. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 5: 2-8
        • Joshi A.
        • Mahfooz S.
        • Maurya V.K.
        • et al.
        PARP1 during embryo implantation and its upregulation by oestradiol in mice.
        Reproduction. 2014; 147: 765-780https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-13-0588
        • Crocker I.P.
        • Kenny L.C.
        • Thornton W.A.
        • Szabo C.
        • Baker P.N.
        Excessive stimulation of poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation contributes to endothelial dysfunction in pre-eclampsia.
        Br. J. Pharmacol. 2005; 144: 772-780https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0706055
        • Laughlin S.
        • Baird D.
        • Savitz D.
        • Herring A.
        • Hartmann K.
        Prevalence of uterine leiomyomas in the first trimester of pregnancy: an ultrasound-screening study.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 113: 630-635https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318197bbaf
        • Van den Bosch T.
        • Coosemans A.
        • Morina M.
        • Timmerman D.
        • Amant F.
        Screening for uterine tumours.
        Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012; 26: 257-266https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2011.08.002
        • Matsuo K.
        • Eno M.L.
        • Im D.D.
        • Rosenshein N.B.
        Pregnancy and genital sarcoma: a systematic review of the literature.
        Am. J. Perinatol. 2009; 26: 507-518https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1215428
        • Suzuki M.
        • Matsunobu A.
        • Wakita K.
        • Nishijima M.
        • Osanai K.
        Hydatidiform mole with a surviving coexisting fetus.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 1980; 56: 384-388
        • Vaisbuch E.
        • Ben-Arie A.
        • Dgani R.
        • Perlman S.
        • Sokolovsky N.
        • Hagay Z.
        Twin pregnancy consisting of a complete hydatidiform mole and co-existent fetus: report of two cases and review of literature.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2005; 98: 19-23https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.02.002
        • Bristow R.E.
        • Shumway J.B.
        • Khouzami A.N.
        • Witter F.R.
        Complete hydatidiform mole and surviving coexistent twin.
        Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1996; 51: 705-709https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-199612000-00002
        • Matsui H.
        • Sekiya S.
        • Hando T.
        • Wake N.
        • Tomoda Y.
        Hydatidiform mole coexistent with a twin live fetus: a national collaborative study in Japan.
        Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15: 608-611https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.3.608
        • Braunstein G.D.
        • Rasor J.
        • Adler D.
        • Danzer H.
        • Wade M.E.
        Serum human chorionic gonadotropin levels throughout normal pregnancy.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1976; 126: 678-681https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(76)90518-4
        • Shiomi M.
        • Matsuzaki S.
        • Kobayashi E.
        • et al.
        Endometrial carcinoma in a gravid uterus: a case report and literature review.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19: 425https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2489-y
        • Amant F.
        • Berveiller P.
        • Boere I.A.
        • et al.
        Gynecologic cancers in pregnancy: guidelines based on a third international consensus meeting.
        Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2019; 30: 1601-1612https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz228
      6. Research C for DE and. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA review results in new warnings about using general anesthetics and sedation drugs in young children and pregnant women. FDA. June 2019. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-review-results-new-warnings-about-using-general-anesthetics-and. Accessed November 25, 2019.

        • Creeley C.E.
        • Dikranian K.T.
        • Dissen G.A.
        • Back S.A.
        • Olney J.W.
        • Brambrink A.M.
        Isoflurane-induced apoptosis of neurons and oligodendrocytes in the fetal rhesus macaque brain.
        Anesthesiology. 2014; 120: 626-638https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000000037
      7. Nonobstetric Surgery During Pregnancy - ACOG. https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Obstetric-Practice/Nonobstetric-Surgery-During-Pregnancy?IsMobileSet=false. Accessed December 9, 2019.

        • Reedy M.B.
        • Källén B.
        • Kuehl T.J.
        Laparoscopy during pregnancy: a study of five fetal outcome parameters with use of the Swedish Health Registry.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1997; 177: 673-679https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70163-7
        • Jackson H.
        • Granger S.
        • Price R.
        • et al.
        Diagnosis and laparoscopic treatment of surgical diseases during pregnancy: an evidence-based review.
        Surg. Endosc. 2008; 22: 1917-1927https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9989-6
        • Berkman N.D.
        • Thorp J.M.
        • Lohr K.N.
        • et al.
        Tocolytic treatment for the management of preterm labor: a review of the evidence.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003; 188: 1648-1659https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.356
        • Tremblay E.
        • Thérasse E.
        • Thomassin-Naggara I.
        • Trop I.
        Quality initiatives: guidelines for use of medical imaging during pregnancy and lactation.
        RadioGraphics. 2012; 32: 897-911https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.323115120
        • Ray J.G.
        • Vermeulen M.J.
        • Bharatha A.
        • Montanera W.J.
        • Park A.L.
        Association between MRI exposure during pregnancy and fetal and childhood outcomes.
        JAMA. 2016; 316: 952-961https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12126
        • Colletti P.M.
        PET-CT in the Pregnant Patient.
      8. Esposito S, Tenconi R, Preti V, Groppali E, Principi N. Chemotherapy against cancer during pregnancy: A systematic review on neonatal outcomes. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(38). doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004899

        • Zemlickis D.
        • Lishner M.
        • Degendorfer P.
        • Panzarella T.
        • Sutcliffe S.B.
        • Koren G.
        Fetal outcome after in utero exposure to cancer chemotherapy.
        Arch. Intern. Med. 1992; 152: 573-576https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1992.00400150093017
        • Abdel-Hady E.-S.
        • Hemida R.A.-H.
        • Gamal A.
        • El-Zafarany M.
        • Toson E.
        • El-Bayoumi M.A.
        Cancer during pregnancy: perinatal outcome after in utero exposure to chemotherapy.
        Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2012; 286: 283-286https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2287-5
        • Cardonick E.
        • Usmani A.
        • Ghaffar S.
        Perinatal outcomes of a pregnancy complicated by cancer, including neonatal follow-up after in utero exposure to chemotherapy: results of an international registry.
        Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010; 33: 221-228https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e3181a44ca9
        • ten Cate F.E.A.U.
        • ten Hove C.H.
        • Nix W.M.L.E.
        • de Vries J.I.P.
        • van de Loosdrecht A.A.
        • van Elburg R.M.
        Transient neonatal myelosuppression after fetal exposure to maternal chemotherapy.
        Neonatology. 2009; 95: 80-85https://doi.org/10.1159/000151759