Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:14:26.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 5 - Bleeding and Pain in Early Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2019)

from Section 2 - Early Prenatal Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2017

By
Naomi S. Crouch ,
Rebecca Swingler  and
David J. Cahill
Edited by
David James ,
Philip Steer ,
Carl Weiner ,
Bernard Gonik  and
Stephen Robson
David James
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Philip Steer
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Carl Weiner
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Bernard Gonik
Affiliation:
Wayne State University, Detroit
Stephen Robson
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle
Get access

Summary

Complications arise more frequently during the first trimester than at any other stage of pregnancy. Most present with bleeding, pain, or both. Vaginal bleeding occurs in about 20% of clinically diagnosed pregnancies. It causes considerable anxiety for the woman and her partner. In the vast majority of cases, no intervention alters the outcome. The main aim of clinical management is a prompt and accurate diagnosis, with reassurance if the pregnancy is appropriately developed and viable, or appropriate intervention if not. This chapter focuses on the principles of diagnosis and management and three principal diagnoses: miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and gestational trophoblastic disease. The other differential diagnoses are shown in Table 5.1.

Type
Chapter
Information
High-Risk Pregnancy
Management Options
 , pp. 85 - 112
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
First published in: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Krause, SA, Graves, BW. Midwifery triage of first trimester bleeding. J Nurse Midwifery 1999; 44: 537–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, NC. Epidemiology of spontaneous abortion. Contemp Rev Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 1: 43–8.Google Scholar
Zinaman, MJ, Clegg, DE, Brown, CC, O’Connor, J, Selevan, SG. Estimates of human fertility and pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 503–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemminki, E. Treatment of miscarriage: Current practice and rationale. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 91: 247–53.Google Scholar
Stabile, I, Campbell, S, Grudzinskas, JG. Ultrasonic assessment of complications during first trimester of pregnancy. Lancet 1987; 2: 1237–40.Google Scholar
O’Herlihy, C. Deaths in early pregnancy. In Cantwell, R, Clutton-Brock, T, Cooper, G, et al. (eds), Saving Mothers’ Lives: Reviewing Maternal Deaths to Make Motherhood Safer 2006–08. The Eighth Report of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. London: BJOG, 2011, pp. 81–4.Google Scholar
Grimes, DA. The morbidity and mortality of pregnancy: still a risky business. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 1489–94.Google Scholar
Stirtzinger, R, Robinson, GE. The psychological effects of spontaneous abortion. Can Med Assn J 1989; 140: 799–806.Google Scholar
Conway, K. Miscarriage. J Psychosomatic Obstet Gynecol 1991; 12: 121–31.Google Scholar
Murphy, FA, Lipp, A, Powles, DL. Follow-up for improving psychological well being for women after a miscarriage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (3): CD008679.Google Scholar
Huxley, RR. Nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Its role in placental development. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 779–82.Google Scholar
Furneaux, EC, Langley-Evans, AJ, Langley-Evans, SC. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001; 56: 775–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weigel, MM, Weigel, RM. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and pregnancy outcome: An epidemiological study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 1304–11.Google Scholar
Regan, L, Braude, PB, Trembath, PL. Influence of past reproductive performance on risk of spontaneous abortion. Br Med J 1989; 299: 541–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knudsen, UB, Hansen, V, Juul, S, Secher, NJ. Prognosis of a new pregnancy following previous spontaneous abortions. Europ J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991; 39: 31–6.Google Scholar
Canis, M, Wattize, A, M. B. Multifunctional analysis or fertility after conservative laparoscopic treatment of ectopic pregnancy in a series of 223 patients. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 453–60.Google Scholar
Pouly, JL, Chapron, C, Manhes, H. Multifactorial analysis of fertility after conservative laparoscopic treatment of ectopic pregnancy in a series of 223 patients. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 453–60.Google Scholar
Semer, DA, Macfee, MS. Gestational trophoblastic disease: epidemiology. Semin Oncol 1995; 22: 109–12.Google Scholar
Peckham, CH. Uterine bleeding during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1970; 78: 14–18.Google Scholar
Grobman, WA, Peaceman, AM. What are the rates and mechanisms of first and second trimester pregnancy loss in twins. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1998; 41: 37–45.Google Scholar
Brown, DL, Doubilet, PM. Transvaginal sonography for diagnosing ectopic pregnancy: positivity criteria and performance characteristics. J Ultrasound Med 1994; 13: 259–66.Google Scholar
Condous, G, Okaro, E, Khalid, A, et al. The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy prior to surgery. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1404–9.Google Scholar
Barnhart, KT, Gosman, G, Ashby, R, Sammel, M. The medical management of ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis comparing “single dose” and “multidose” regimens. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 778–84.Google Scholar
Nepomnaschy, PA, Weinberg, CR, Wilcox, AJ, Baird, DD. Urinary hCG patterns during the week following implantation. Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 271–7.Google Scholar
Mills, MS. Ultrasonography of early embryonic growth and fetal development. MD thesis, University of Bristol, 1992.Google Scholar
Hollander, HJ. Estimation of gestational age by mean gestational sac diameter. Die Ultraschalldiagnostik in der Schwangerschaft 1972: 47–53.Google Scholar
Merchiers, EH, Dhont, M, De Sutter, PA, Beghin, CJ, Vandekerckhove, DA. Predictive value of early embryonic cardiac activity for pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 11–14.Google Scholar
Robinson, HP, Shaw-Dunn, J. Fetal heart rates as determined by sonar in early pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1973; 80: 805–9.Google Scholar
Bourne, T, Bottomley, C. When is a pregnancy nonviable and what criteria should be used to define miscarriage? Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 1091–6.Google Scholar
Nyberg, DA, Filly, RA, Mahony, BS, et al. Early gestation: correlation of HCG levels and sonographic identification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1985; 144: 951–4.Google Scholar
Jouppila, P, Huhtaniemi, I, Tapanainen, J. Early pregnancy failure: study by ultrasonic and hormonal methods. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 55: 42–7.Google Scholar
Wilson, RD, Kendrick, V, Wittmann, BK, McGillivray, B. Spontaneous abortion and pregnancy outcome after normal first trimester ultrasound examination. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 352–5.Google Scholar
Verhaegen, J, Gallos, ID, van Mello, NM, et al. Accuracy of single progesterone test to predict early pregnancy outcome in women with pain or bleeding: meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMJ 2012; 345: e6077.Google Scholar
Stovall, TG, Ling, FW, Carson, SA, Buster, JE. Serum progesterone and uterine curettage in differential diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 456–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadar, N, DeVore, G, Romero, R. Discriminatory hCG zone: its use in the sonographic evaluation for ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1981; 58: 156–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Barnhart, KT, Sammel, MD, Rinaudo, PF, et al. Symptomatic patients with an early viable intrauterine pregnancy: HCG curves redefined. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104: 50–5.Google Scholar
Senapati, SB, Barnhart, KT. Biomarkers for ectopic pregnancy and pregnancy of unknown location. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 1107–16.Google Scholar
Rausch, M, Sammel, MD, Takacs, P et al. Development of a multiple marker test for ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 573–82.Google Scholar
Regan, L, Rai, R. Epidemiology and the medical causes of miscarriage. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 14: 839–54.Google Scholar
Hutchon, DJR, Cooper, S. Terminology for early pregnancy loss must be changed. BMJ 1998; 317: 1081.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Spontaneous and Induced Abortions. Technical report series No. 41. Geneva: WHO, 1970.Google Scholar
Bigrigg, MA, Read, MD. Management of women referred to early pregnancy assessment unit: care and cost effectiveness. BMJ 1991; 302: 577–9.Google Scholar
Draycott, T, Read, M. The managed care of early pregnancy problems. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1997; 9: 262–6.Google Scholar
Chard, T. Frequency of implantation and early pregnancy loss in natural cycles. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 5: 179–89.Google Scholar
Macklon, NS, Geraedts, JP, Fauser, BC. Conception to ongoing pregnancy: the ‘black box’ of early pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8: 333–43.Google Scholar
Blohm, F, Friden, B, Milsom, I. A prospective longitudinal population based study of clinical miscarriage in an urban Swedish population. BJOG 2008; 115: 176–83.Google Scholar
Hooker, AB, Lemmers, M, Thurkow, AL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrauterine adhesions after miscarriage: prevalence, risk factors and long-term reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20: 262–78.Google Scholar
Tuuli, MG, Norman, SM, Odibo, AO, Macones, GA, Cahill, AG. Perinatal outcomes in women with subchorionic hematoma: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 1205–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wahabi, HA, Fayed, AA, Esmaeil, SA, Bahkali, KH. Progestogen for treating threatened miscarriage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; (8): CD005943. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005943.pub5.Google Scholar
European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Guideline on the management of recurrent pregnancy loss. www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/Guidelines/Recurrent-pregnancy-loss (accessed June 2019).Google Scholar
Pandya, PP, Snijders, RJ, Psara, N, Hilbert, L, Nicolaides, KH. The prevalence of non-viable pregnancy at 10–13 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 170–3.Google Scholar
Forna, F, Gülmezoglu, AM. Surgical procedures to evacuate incomplete abortion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (1): CD001993.Google Scholar
Wieringa-de Waard, M, Hartman, EE, Ankum, WM, et al. Expectant management versus surgical evacuation in first trimester miscarriage: health-related quality of life in randomized and non-randomized patients. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1638–42.Google ScholarPubMed
Ankum, WM, Wieringa-de Waard, M, Bindels, PJE. Management of spontaneous miscarriage in the first trimester: an example of putting informed shared decision making into practice. BMJ 2001; 322: 1343–6.Google Scholar
Nanda, K, Lopez, LM, Grimes, DA, Peloggia, A, Nanda, G. Expectant care versus surgical treatment for miscarriage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (3): CD003518.Google Scholar
Trinder, J, Brocklehurst, P, Porter, R, et al. Management of miscarriage: expectant, medical, or surgical? Results of randomised controlled trial (miscarriage treatment (MIST) trial). BMJ 2006; 332: 1235–40.Google Scholar
Shelley, JM, Healy, D, Grover, S. A randomised trial of surgical, medical and expectant management of first trimester spontaneous miscarriage. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 45: 122–7.Google Scholar
Petrou, S, McIntosh, E. Women’s preferences for attributes of first-trimester miscarriage management: a stated preference discrete-choice experiment. Value Health 2009; 12: 551–9.Google Scholar
Petrou, S, Trinder, J, Brocklehurst, P, Smith, L. Economic evaluation of alternative management methods of first-trimester miscarriage based on results from the MIST trial. BJOG 2006; 113: 879–89.Google Scholar
Harwood, B, Nansel, T. Quality of life and acceptability of medical versus surgical management of early pregnancy failure. BJOG 2008; 115: 501–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luise, C, Jermy, K, Collins, WP, Bourne, TH. Expectant management of incomplete, spontaneous first-trimester miscarriage: outcome according to initial ultrasound criteria and value of follow-up visits. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 580–2.Google Scholar
Gronlund, L, Gronlund, AL, Clevin, L, et al. Spontaneous abortion: expectant management, medical treatment or surgical evacuation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 781–2.Google Scholar
Child, TJ, Thomas, J, Rees, M, MacKenzie, IZ. A comparative study of surgical and medical procedures: 932 pregnancy terminations up to 63 days gestation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 67–71.Google Scholar
Nielsen, S, Hahlin, M, Platz-Christensen, J. Randomised trial comparing expectant with medical management for first trimester miscarriages. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 804–7.Google Scholar
Hurd, WW, Whitfield, RR, Randolph, JF, Kercher, ML. Expectant management versus elective curettage for the treatment of spontaneous abortion. Fertil Steril 1997; 68: 601–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Management of Early Pregnancy Loss. Green-top Guideline No. 25. London: RCOG, 2006.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Recommendations from the Study Group on Problems in Early Pregnancy: Advances in Diagnosis and Management. London: RCOG, 1997.Google Scholar
Schwarzler, P, Holden, D, Nielson, S, et al. The conservative management of first trimester miscarriages and the use of colour Doppler sonography for patient selection. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1341–5.Google Scholar
Prieto, JA, Eriksen, NL, Blanco, JD. A randomized trial of prophylactic doxycycline for curettage in incomplete abortion. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 692–6.Google Scholar
Xiang, L, Wei, Z, Cao, Y. Symptoms of an intrauterine hematoma associated with pregnancy complications: a systematic review. PLoS One 2014; 9: e111676.Google Scholar
Moini, A, Hosseini, R, Jahangiri, N, Shiva, M, Akhoond, MR. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a case–control study. J Res Med Sci 2014; 19: 844–9.Google Scholar
Kirk, E, Papageorghiou, AT, Condous, G, et al. The diagnostic effectiveness of an initial transvaginal scan in detecting ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2824–8.Google Scholar
Atri, M, Valenti, DA, Bret, PM, Gillett, P. Effect of transvaginal sonography on the use of invasive procedures for evaluating patients with a clinical diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 2003; 31: 1–8.Google Scholar
Kirk, E, Daemen, A, Papageorghiou, AT, et al. Why are some ectopic pregnancies characterized as pregnancies of unknown location at the initial transvaginal ultrasound examination? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87: 1150–4.Google Scholar
Condous, G, Lu, C, Van Huffel, SV, Timmerman, D, Bourne, T. Human chorionic gonadotrophin and progesterone levels in pregnancies of unknown location. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004; 86: 351–7.Google Scholar
Condous, G, Timmerman, D, Goldstein, S, et al. Pregnancies of unknown location: consensus statement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 121–2.Google Scholar
van Mello, NM, Mol, F, Opmeer, BC, et al. Diagnostic value of serum hCG on the outcome of pregnancy of unknown location: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012; 18: 603–17.Google Scholar
Banerjee, S, Aslam, N, Woelfer, B, et al. Expectant management of early pregnancies of unknown location: a prospective evaluation of methods to predict spontaneous resolution of pregnancy. BJOG 2001; 108: 158–63.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Management of Tubal Pregnancies. London: RCOG, 2010.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ectopic Pregnancy and Miscarriage: Diagnosis and Initial Management in Early Pregnancy. Clinical Guideline CG154. London: NICE, 2012 [updated February 2015]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg154 (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Trio, D, Strobelt, N, Picciolo, C, Lapinski, RH, Ghidini, A. Prognostic factors for successful expectant management of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 469–72.Google Scholar
Day, A, Sawyer, E, Mavrelos, D, et al. Use of serum progesterone measurements to reduce need for follow-up in women with pregnancies of unknown location. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 704–10.Google Scholar
Korhonen, J, Stenman, UH, Ylostalo, P. Serum human chorionic gonadotropin dynamics during spontaneous resolution of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 632–6.Google Scholar
Rozenberg, P, Chevret, S, Camus, E, et al. Medical treatment of ectopic pregnancies: a randomized clinical trial comparing methotrexate-mifepristone and methotrexate-placebo. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1802–8.Google Scholar
Tanaka, T, Hayashi, H, Kutsuzawa, T, Fujimoto, S, Ichinoe, K. Treatment of interstitial ectopic pregnancy with methotrexate: report of a successful case. Fertil Steril 1982; 37: 851–2.Google Scholar
Yao, M, Tulandi, T. Current status of surgical and nonsurgical management of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 421–33.Google Scholar
Hajenius, PJ, Mol, F, Mol, BW, et al. Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (1): CD000324.Google Scholar
Newbatt, E, Beckles, Z, Ullman, R, Lumsden, MA. Ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2012; 345: e8136.Google Scholar
Nurmohamed, L, Moretti, ME, Schechter, T, et al. Outcome following high-dose methotrexate in pregnancies misdiagnosed as ectopic. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205: 533 e1–3.Google Scholar
Lipscomb, GH, McCord, ML, Stovall, TG, et al. Predictors of success of methotrexate treatment in women with tubal ectopic pregnancies. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1974–8.Google Scholar
Fernandez, H, Yves Vincent, SC, Pauthier, S, Audibert, F, Frydman, R. Randomized trial of conservative laparoscopic treatment and methotrexate administration in ectopic pregnancy and subsequent fertility. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 3239–43.Google Scholar
Sowter, MC, Farquhar, CM, Petrie, KJ, Gudex, G. A randomised trial comparing single dose systemic methotrexate and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of unruptured tubal pregnancy. BJOG 2001; 108: 192–203.Google Scholar
Nieuwkerk, PT, Hajenius, PJ, Van der Veen, F, et al. Systemic methotrexate therapy versus laparoscopic salpingostomy in tubal pregnancy. Part II. Patient preferences for systemic methotrexate. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 518–22.Google Scholar
Vermesh, M, Presser, SC. Reproductive outcome after linear salpingostomy for ectopic gestation: a prospective 3-year follow-up. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 682–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, AA, Nager, CW, Wujek, JJ, et al. Operative laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of ectopic pregnancy: a prospective trial. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 1180–5.Google Scholar
Gray, DT, Thorburn, J, Lundorff, P, Lindblom, B. Laparoscopic treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Lancet 1995; 346: 706–7.Google Scholar
Lundorff, P, Thorburn, J, Lindblom, B. Fertility outcome after conservative surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy evaluated in a randomized trial. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 998–1002.Google Scholar
Sau, AK, Sau, M. Can we offer completely non-surgical management for ectopic pregnancy? BMJ 2000; 322: 793.Google Scholar
Carson, SA, Buster, JE. Ectopic pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1174–81.Google Scholar
Dubuisson, JB, Morice, P, Chapron, C, De Gayffier, A, Mouelhi, T. Salpingectomy: the laparoscopic surgical choice for ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod 1996; 11: 1199–203.Google Scholar
Mol, BW, Hajenius, PJ, Ankum, WM, van der Veen, F, Bossuyt, PM. Cut-off level–what do you want it to be? Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 980–1.Google Scholar
Clausen, I. Conservative versus radical surgery for tubal pregnancy: a review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996; 75: 8–12.Google Scholar
Mol, F, van Mello, NM, Strandell, A, et al. Salpingotomy versus salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy (ESEP study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2014; 383: 1483–9.Google Scholar
Ego, A, Subtil, D, Cosson, M, et al. Survival analysis of fertility after ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2001; 75: 560–6.Google Scholar
Job-Spira, N, Fernandez, H, Bouyer, J, et al. Ruptured tubal ectopic pregnancy: risk factors and reproductive outcome: results of a population-based study in France. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 938–44.Google Scholar
Mol, BW, Matthijsse, HC, Tinga, DJ, et al. Fertility after conservative and radical surgery for tubal pregnancy. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1804–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deepa, J, Oladimeji, O, Funlayo, O. Factors that determine patient satisfaction after surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy: improving the patient journey! Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 178: 60–5.Google Scholar
Capmas, P, Bouyer, J, Fernandez, H. Treatment of ectopic pregnancies in 2014: new answers to some old questions. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 615–20.Google Scholar
Skubisz, MM, Horne, AW, Johns, TG, et al. Combination gefitinib and methotrexate compared with methotrexate alone to treat ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122: 745–51.Google Scholar
Kirk, E, Bottomley, C, Bourne, T. Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy and current concepts in the management of pregnancy of unknown location. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20: 250–61.Google Scholar
Ankum, WM, Van der Veen, F, Hamerlynck, JV, Lammes, FB. Laparoscopy: a dispensable tool in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy? Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 1301–6.Google Scholar
Lang, PF, Makinen, JI, Irjala, KM, et al. Laparoscopic instillation of hyperosmolar glucose vs. expectant management of tubal pregnancies with serum hCG ≤ 2500 mIU/mL. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 797–800.Google Scholar
Laatikainen, T, Tuomivaara, L, Kaar, K. Comparison of a local injection of hyperosmolar glucose solution with salpingostomy for the conservative treatment of tubal pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1993; 60: 80–4.Google Scholar
Scully, R, Bonfiglio, TA, Kurman, RJ, Silverberg, SG, Wilkinson, EJ. Histological Typing of Female Genital Tract Tumours (World Health Organization International Histological Classification of Tumours). 2nd edn. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
Rose, PG. Hydatidifrom mole: diagnosis and management. Semin Oncol 1995; 22: 149–56.Google Scholar
Bower, M, Brock, C, Fisher, RA, Newlands, ES, Rustin, GJ. Gestational choriocarcinoma. Ann Oncol 1995; 6: 503–8.Google Scholar
Lage, JM, Bagg, A, Berchem, GJ. Gestational trophoblastic diseases. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1996; 8: 79–82.Google Scholar
Bagshawe, KD, Dent, J, Webb, J. Hydatidiform mole in England and Wales 1973–1983. Lancet 1986; ii: 673–7.Google Scholar
Palmer, JR. Advances in the epidemiology of gestational trophoblastic disease. J Reprod Med 1994; 39: 155–62.Google Scholar
Kohorn, EI. The new FIGO 2000 staging and risk factor scoring system for gestational trophoblastic disease: description and critical assessment. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2001; 11: 73–7.Google Scholar
Altieri, A, Franceschi, S, Ferlay, J, Smith, J, La Vecchia, C. Epidemiology and aetiology of gestational trophoblastic diseases. Lancet Oncol 2003; 4: 670–8.Google Scholar
Bracken, MB. Incidence and aetiology of hydatidiform mole: an epidemiological review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94: 1123–35.Google Scholar
Smith, HO, Hilgers, RD, Bedrick, EJ, et al. Ethnic differences at risk for gestational trophoblastic disease in New Mexico: A 25-year population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 357–66.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ, Foskett, M, Fisher, RA, et al. Risk of partial and complete hydatidiform molar pregnancy in relation to maternal age. BJOG 2002; 109: 99–102.Google Scholar
Parazzini, F, La Vecchia, C, Pampallona, S. Parental age and risk of complete and partial hydatidiform mole. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 582–5.Google Scholar
Graham, IH, Fajardo, AM, Richards, RL. Epidemiological study of complete and partial hydatidiform mole in Abu Dhabi: influence age and ethnic group. J Clin Pathol 1990; 43: 661–4.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ, Fisher, RA, Fockett, M, et al. Risk of recurrent hydatidiform mole and subsequent pregnancy outcome following complete or partial hydatidiform molar pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 110: 22–6.Google Scholar
Fisher, RA, Hodges, MD. Genomic imprinting in gestational trophoblastic disease–a review. Placenta 2003; 24: S111–18.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ. Histopathological diagnosis of hydatidiform mole: contemporary features and clinical implications. Fetal Pediatr Pathol 2010; 29: 1–16.Google Scholar
Fisher, RA, Hodges, MD, Newlands, ES. Familial recurrent hydatidiform mole: a review. J Reprod Med 2004; 49: 595–601.Google ScholarPubMed
Petignat, P, Billieux, MH, Blouin, JL, Dahoun, S, Vassilakos, P. Is genetic analysis useful in the routine management of hydatidiform mole? Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 243–9.Google Scholar
Zaragoza, MV, Surti, U, Redline, RW, et al. Parental origin and phenotype of triploidy in spontaneous abortions: predominance of diandry and association with the partial hydatidiform mole. Am J Hum Genet 2000; 66: 1807–20.Google Scholar
Fryns, JP, van de Kerckhove, A, Goddeeris, P, van den Berghe, H. Unusually long survival in a case of full triploidy of maternal origin. Hum Genet 1977; 38: 147–55.Google Scholar
Seckl, MJ, Fisher, RA, Salerno, G, et al. Choriocarcinoma and partial hydatidiform moles. Lancet 2000; 356: 36–9.Google Scholar
Trophoblastic Tumour Screening and Treatment Centre. Information for clinicians. London: Department of Medical Oncology, Charing Cross Hospital, 2013. http://www.hmole-chorio.org.uk/clinicians_info.html (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Jauniaux, E, Kadri, R, Hustin, J. Partial mole and triploidy: screening patients with first-trimester spontaneous abortion. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88: 616–19.Google Scholar
Niemann, I, Petersen, LK, Hansen, ES, Sunde, L. Differences in current clinical features of diploid and triploid hydatidiform mole. BJOG 2007; 114: 1273–7.Google Scholar
Soto-Wright, V, Bernstein, M, Goldstein, DP, Berkowitz, RS. The changing clinical presentation of complete molar pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86: 775–9.Google Scholar
Fowler, DJ, Lindsay, I, Seckl, MJ, Sebire, NJ. Routine pre-evacuation ultrasound diagnosis of hydatidiform mole: experience of more than 1000 cases from a regional referral center. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 56–60.Google Scholar
Stone, M, Bagshawe, KD. An analysis of the influence of maternal age, gestational age, contraceptive method and mode of primary treatment of patients with hydatidiform moles on the incidence of subsequent chemotherapy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1979; 86: 782–92.Google Scholar
Gillespie, AM, Tidy, J, Bright, N, et al. Primary gynaecological management of gestational trophoblastic tumours and the subsequent development of persistent trophoblastic disease. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 107 (suppl 17 abstr. 287): 95.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Gestational Trophoblastic Disease. Green-top Guideline No. 38. London: RCOG, 2010.Google Scholar
Bahar, AM, el-Ashnehi, MS, Senthilselvan, A. Hydatidiform mole in the elderly: hysterectomy or evacuation? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1989; 29: 233–8.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ, Foskett, M, Fisher, RA, Lindsay, I, Seckl, MJ. Persistent gestational trophoblastic disease is rarely, if ever, derived from non-molar first-trimester miscarriage. Med Hypotheses 2005; 64: 689–93.Google Scholar
Alazzam, M, Tidy, J, Hancock, BW, Osborne, R, Lawrie, TA. First-line chemotherapy in low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (7): CD007102.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ, Foskett, M, Short, D, et al. Shortened duration of human chorionic gonadotrophin surveillance following complete or partial hydatidiform mole: evidence for revised protocol of a UK regional trophoblastic disease unit. BJOG 2007; 114: 760–2.Google Scholar
Hancock, BW, Tidy, JA. Current management of molar pregnancy. J Reprod Med 2002; 47: 347–54.Google Scholar
Feltmate, CM, Growdon, WB, Wolfberg, AJ, et al. Clinical characteristics of persistent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia after partial hydatidiform molar pregnancy. J Reprod Med 2006; 51: 902–6.Google Scholar
Hancock, BW, Nazir, K, Everard, JE. Persistent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia after partial hydatidiform mole incidence and outcome. J Reprod Med 2006; 51: 764–6.Google Scholar
Curry, SL, Hammond, CB, Tyrey, L, Creasman, WT, Parker, RT. Hydatidiform mole: diagnosis, management, and long-term followup of 347 patients. Obstet Gynecol 1975; 45: 1–8.Google Scholar
Wang, Q, Fu, J, Hu, L, Fang, F, et al. Prophylactic chemotherapy for hydatidiform mole to prevent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (9): CD007289.Google Scholar
Costa, HL, Doyle, P. Influence of oral contraceptives in the development of post-molar trophoblastic neoplasia: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2006; 100: 579–85.Google Scholar
Savage, P. Molar pregnancy: a review. Obstetrician and Gynaecologist 2008; 10 (10): 3–8.Google Scholar
Bagshawe, KD, Harland, S. Immunodiagnosis and monitoring of gonadotrophin-producing metastases in the central nervous system. Cancer 1976; 38: 112–18.Google Scholar
Shapter, AP, McLellan, R. Gestational trophoblastic disease. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2001; 28: 805–17.Google Scholar
Pezeshki, M, Hancock, BW, Silcocks, P, et al. The role of repeat uterine evacuation in the management of persistent gestational trophoblastic disease. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 95: 423–9.Google Scholar
Savage, P, Seckl, MJ. The role of repeat uterine evacuation in trophoblast disease. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 99: 251–2.Google Scholar
FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Current FIGO staging for cancer of the vagina, fallopian tube, ovary, and gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 105: 3–4.Google Scholar
Matsui, H, Iitsuka, Y, Seki, K, Sekiya, S. Comparison of chemotherapies with methotrexate, VP-16 and actinomycin-D in low-risk gestational trophoblastic disease. Remission rates and drug toxicities. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1998; 46: 5–8.Google Scholar
Bagshawe, KD, Dent, J, Newlands, ES, Begent, RH, Rustin, GJ. The role of low-dose methotrexate and folinic acid in gestational trophoblastic tumours (GTT). Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 795–802.Google Scholar
Deng, L, Zhang, J, Wu, T, Lawrie, TA. Combination chemotherapy for primary treatment of high-risk gestational trophoblastic tumour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 1: CD005196.Google Scholar
Ngan, S, Seckl, MJ. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia management: an update. Curr Opin Oncol 2007; 19: 486–91.Google Scholar
Lurain, JR, Sand, PK, Carson, SA, Brewer, JI. Pregnancy outcome subsequent to consecutive hydatidiform moles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142: 1060–1.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, RS, Goldstein, DP, Bernstein, MR, Sablinska, B. Subsequent pregnancy outcome in patients with molar pregnancy and gestational trophoblastic tumors. J Reprod Med 1987; 32: 680–4.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, RS, Goldstein, DP. Chorionic tumors. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1740–8.Google Scholar
Garner, EIO, Lipson, E, Bernstein, MR, Goldstein, DP, Berkowitz, RS. Subsequent pregnancy experience in patients with molar pregnancy and gestational trophoblastic tumor. J Reprod Med 2002; 47: 380–6.Google Scholar
Garrett, LA, Garner, EI, Feltmate, CM, Goldstein, DP, Berkowitz, RS. Subsequent pregnancy outcomes in patients with molar pregnancy and persistent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. J Reprod Med 2008; 53: 481–6.Google Scholar
Petersen, RW, Ung, K, Holland, C, Quinlivan, JA. The impact of molar pregnancy on psychological symptomatology, sexual function, and quality of life. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 97: 535–42.Google Scholar
Szulman, AE. Trophoblastic disease: clinical pathology of hydatidiform moles. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1988; 15: 443–56.Google Scholar
Horn, LC, Bilek, K. Clinicopathologic analysis of gestational trophoblastic disease–report of 158 cases. Gen Diagn Pathol 1997; 143: 173–8.Google Scholar
Schlaerth, JB, Morrow, CP, Rodriguez, M. Diagnostic and therapeutic curettage in gestational trophoblastic disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 1465–70.Google Scholar
Newlands, ES, Bower, M, Holden, L, Short, D, Seckl, MJ, Rustin, GJ, et al. Management of resistant gestational trophoblastic tumors. J Reprod Med 1998; 43: 111–18.Google Scholar
Dobson, LS, Lorigan, PC, Coleman, RE, Hancock, BW. Persistent gestational trophoblastic disease: results of MEA (methotrexate, etoposide and dactinomycin) as first-line chemotherapy in high risk disease and EA (etoposide and dactinomycin) as second-line therapy for low risk disease. Br J Cancer 2000; 82: 1547–52.Google Scholar
Qureshi, H, Massey, E, Kirwan, D, et al. BCSH guideline for the use of anti-D immunoglobulin for the prevention of haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Transfus Med 2014; 24: 8–20.Google Scholar
Matthews, CD, Matthews, AE. Transplacental haemorrhage in spontaneous and induced abortion. Lancet 1969; 1: 694–5.Google Scholar
Schorge, JO, Goldstein, DP, Bernstein, MR, Berkowitz, RS. Gestational trophoblastic disease. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2000; 1: 169–75.Google Scholar
ACOG Practice Bulletin #53. Diagnosis and treatment of gestational trophoblastic disease. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 1365–77.Google Scholar
Soothill, P, Finning, K, Latham, T, et al. Use of cffDNA to avoid administration of anti-D to pregnant women when the fetus is RhD-negative: implementation in the NHS. BJOG 2015; 122: 1682–6.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×