Factor V Leiden and Prothrombin G20210A in Portuguese Women with Recurrent Miscarriage: Is it Worthwhile to Investigate?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of factor V Leiden (FVL) and prothrombin (PT) G20210A mutations in Portuguese women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM) and a control group of parous women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FVL and PT G20210A analysis were carried out in 100 women with three or more consecutive miscarriages and 100 controls with no history of pregnancy losses. Secondary analysis was made regarding gestational age at miscarriage (embryonic and fetal losses). RESULTS: Overall, the prevalence of FVL and PT G20210A was similar in women with RM (5 and 3%) compared with controls (5 and 1%) OR 1.36 (CI 95% 0.45-4.08). In RM embryonic subgroup, PT G20210A was observed in 1.3% of women and FVL prevalence (2.6%) was inclusively lesser than that of controls. Both polymorphisms were more prevalent in women with fetal losses than in controls, although statistical significance was not reached due to the small size of the >10 weeks' subgroup. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that neither FVL nor PT G20210A is associated with RM prior to 10 weeks of gestation. Therefore, its screening is not indicated as an initial approach in Portuguese women with embryonic RM and negative personal thromboembolic history.

The Shading Sign: Is It Exclusive of Endometriomas?

OBJECTIVES: To investigate if the shading sign is an exclusive MRI feature of endometriomas or endometrioid tumors, and to analyze its different patterns. METHODS: Three hundred and fourty six women with adnexal masses who underwent 1.5/3-T MRI were included in this retrospective, board-approved study. The shading sign was found in 56 patients, but five cases were excluded due to lack of imaging follow-up or histological correlation. The final sample included 51 women. The type of tumor and the pattern of shading were recorded for each case. RESULTS: Thirty endometriomas and five endometrioid carcinomas were found. The remaining 16 cases corresponded to other benign and malignant tumors. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 73%, 93%, 59%, and 96%, respectively. Restricting the analysis to cystic lesions without solid or fat component, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 73%, 96%, 94%, and 80%. Five shading patterns were identified: layering (15.7%), liquid-liquid level (11.8%), homogenous (45.1%), heterogeneous (11.8%), and focal/multifocal shading within a complex mass (19.6%). No significant correlation was found between these patterns and the type of tumor. CONCLUSIONS: The shading sign is not exclusive of endometriomas or endometrioid tumors. Homogenous shading was the most prevalent pattern in endometriomas and half of the cases with focal/multifocal shading within a complex mass were endometrioid carcinomas.