Cancer and fertility preservation: International recommendations from an expert meeting

In the last years, thanks to the improvement in the prognosis of cancer patients, a growing attention has been given to the fertility issues. International guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients recommend that physicians discuss, as early as possible, with all patients of reproductive age their risk of infertility from the disease and/or treatment and their interest in having children after cancer, and help with informed fertility preservation decisions. As recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, sperm cryopreservation and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservations in male and female patients, respectively; other strategies (e.g. pharmacological protection of the gonads and gonadal tissue cryopreservation) are considered experimental techniques. However, since then, new data have become available, and several issues in this field are still controversial and should be addressed by both patients and their treating physicians. In April 2015, physicians with expertise in the field of fertility preservation in cancer patients from several European countries were invited in Genova (Italy) to participate in a workshop on the topic of "cancer and fertility preservation". A total of ten controversial issues were discussed at the conference. Experts were asked to present an up-to-date review of the literature published on these topics and the presentation of own unpublished data was encouraged. On the basis of the data presented, as well as the expertise of the invited speakers, a total of ten recommendations were discussed and prepared with the aim to help physicians in counseling their young patients interested in fertility preservation. Although there is a great interest in this field, due to the lack of large prospective cohort studies and randomized trials on these topics, the level of evidence is not higher than 3 for most of the recommendations highlighting the need of further research efforts in many areas of this field. The participation to the ongoing registries and prospective studies is crucial to acquire more robust information in order to provide evidence-based recommendations.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Italy: An Appraisal of 26,863 Cases

Objective: To evaluate the practice of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in Italy. Methods: On behalf of the Italian Society of Young Surgeons (SPIGC), an audit of LA was carried out through a written questionnaire sent to 800 institutions in Italy. The questions concerned the diffusion of laparoscopic surgery and LA over the period 1990 through 2001, surgery-related morbidity and mortality rates, indications for LA, the diagnostic algorithm adopted prior to surgery, and use of LA among young surgeons (<40 years). Results: A total of 182 institutions (22.7%) participated in the current audit, and accounted for a total number of 26863 LA. Laparoscopic surgery is performed in 173 (95%) institutions, with 144 (83.2%) routinely performing LA. The mean interval from introduction of laparoscopic surgery to inception of LA was 3.4 ± 2.5 years. There was an emergent basis for 8809 (32.8%) LA procedures (<6 hours of admission); 10314 (38.4%) procedures were performed on an urgent basis (<24 hours of admission); while 7740 (28.8%) procedures were elective. The conversion rate was 2.1% (561 cases) and was due to intraoperative complications in 197 cases (35.1%). Intraoperative complications ranged as high as 0.32%, while postoperative complications were reported in 1.2% of successfully completed LA. The mean hospital stay for successfully completed LA was 2.5 ± 1.05 days. The highest rate of intraoperative complications was reported as occurring during the learning curve phase of their experience (in their first 10 procedures) by 39.7% of the surgeons. LA was indicated for every case of suspected acute appendiceal disease by 51.8% of surgeons, and 44.8% order abdominal ultrasound (US) prior to surgery. A gynecologic counseling is deemed necessary only by 34.5% surgeons, while an abdominal CT scan is required only by 1.5%. The procedure is completed laparoscopically in the absence of gross appendiceal inflammation by 83%; 79.8% try to complete the procedure laparoscopically in the presence of concomitant disease; while 10.4% convert to open surgery in cases of suspected malignancy. Of responding surgeons aged under 40, 76.3% can perform LA, compared to 47.3% surgeons of all age categories. Conclusions: The low response rate of the present survey does not allow us to assess the diffusion of LA in Italy, but rather to appraise its practice in centers routinely performing laparoscopic surgery. In the hands of experienced surgeons, LA has morbidity rates comparable to those of international series. The higher diagnostic yield of laparoscopy makes it an invaluable tool in the management algorithm of women of childbearing age; its advantages in the presence of severe peritonitis are less clear-cut. Surgeons remain the main limiting factor preventing a wider diffusion of LA in our country, since only 47.3% of surgeons from the audited institutions can perform LA on a routine basis.