Endometrial cancer is the most frequent gynecological malignancy, and, although epidemiologically it mainly affects advanced age women, it can also affect young patients who want children and who have not yet completed their procreative project. Fertility sparing treatments are the subject of many studies and research in continuous evolution, and represent a light of hope for young cancer patients who find themselves having to face an oncological path before fulfilling their desire for motherhood. The advances in molecular biology and the more precise clinical and prognostic classification of endometrial cancer based on the 2013 The Cancer Genome Atlas classification allow for the selection of patients who can be submitted to fertility sparing treatments with increasing oncological safety. It would also be possible to predict the response to hormonal treatment by investigating the state of the genes of the mismatch repair.

Many clinical conditions require radiological diagnostic exams based on the emission of different kinds of energy and the use of contrast agents, such as computerized tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance (MR), ultrasound (US), and X-ray imaging. Pregnant patients who should be submitted for diagnostic examinations with contrast agents represent a group of patients with whom it is necessary to consider both maternal and fetal effects. Radiological examinations use different types of contrast media, the most used and studied are represented by iodinate contrast agents, gadolinium, fluorodeoxyglucose, gastrographin, bariumsulfate, and nanobubbles used in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). The present paper reports the available data about each contrast agent and its effect related to the mother and fetus. This review aims to clarify the clinical practices to follow in cases where a radiodiagnostic examination with a contrast medium is indicated to be performed on a pregnant patient.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of third‐trimester ultrasound for the diagnosis of clinically significant placenta accreta spectrum disorder (PAS) in women with low‐lying placenta or placenta previa.Methods: This was a prospective multicenter study of pregnant women aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with low‐lying placenta (< 20 mm from the internal cervical os) or placenta previa (covering the internal cervical os) on ultrasound at ≥ 26 + 0 weeks' gestation, between October 2014 and January 2019. Ultrasound suspicion of PAS was raised in the presence of at least one of these signs on grayscale ultrasound: (1) obliteration of the hypoechogenic space between the uterus and the placenta; (2) interruption of the hyperechogenic interface between the uterine serosa and the bladder wall; (3) abnormal placental lacunae. Histopathological examinations were performed according to a predefined protocol, with pathologists blinded to the ultrasound findings. To assess the ability of ultrasound to detect clinically significant PAS, a composite outcome comprising the need for active management at delivery and histopathological confirmation of PAS was considered the reference standard. PAS was considered to be clinically significant if, in addition to histological confirmation, at least one of these procedures was carried out after delivery: use of hemostatic intrauterine balloon, compressive uterine suture, peripartum hysterectomy, uterine/hypogastric artery ligation or uterine artery embolization. The diagnostic performance of each ultrasound sign for clinically significant PAS was evaluated in all women and in the subgroup who had at least one previous Cesarean section and anterior placenta. Post‐test probability was assessed using Fagan nomograms.Results: A total of 568 women underwent transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound examinations during the study period. Of these, 95 delivered in local hospitals, and placental pathology according to the study protocol was therefore not available. Among the 473 women for whom placental pathology was available, clinically significant PAS was diagnosed in 99 (21%), comprising 36 cases of placenta accreta, 19 of placenta increta and 44 of placenta percreta. The median gestational age at the time of ultrasound assessment was 31.4 (interquartile range, 28.6–34.4) weeks. A normal hypoechogenic space between the uterus and the placenta reduced the post‐test probability of clinically significant PAS from 21% to 5% in women with low‐lying placenta or placenta previa in the third trimester of pregnancy and from 62% to 9% in the subgroup with previous Cesarean section and anterior placenta. The absence of placental lacunae reduced the post‐test probability of clinically significant PAS from 21% to 9% in women with low‐lying placenta or placenta previa in the third trimester of pregnancy and from 62% to 36% in the subgroup with previous Cesarean section and anterior placenta. When abnormal placental lacunae were seen on ultrasound, the post‐test probability of clinically significant PAS increased from 21% to 59% in the whole cohort and from 62% to 78% in the subgroup with previous Cesarean section and anterior placenta. An interrupted hyperechogenic interface between the uterine serosa and bladder wall increased the post‐test probability for clinically significant PAS from 21% to 85% in women with low‐lying placenta or placenta previa and from 62% to 88% in the subgroup with previous Cesarean section and anterior placenta. When all three sonographic markers were present, the post‐test probability for clinically significant PAS increased from 21% to 89% in the whole cohort and from 62% to 92% in the subgroup with previous Cesarean section and anterior placenta.Conclusions: Grayscale ultrasound has good diagnostic performance to identify pregnancies at low risk of PAS in a high‐risk population of women with low‐lying placenta or placenta previa. Ultrasound may be safely used to guide management decisions and concentrate resources on patients with higher risk of clinically significant PAS. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Background: Tdap and flu immunization in pregnancy has been proven to be both effective and safe. Despite this, the vaccination rate in pregnant women is low in Italy. The COVID-19 pandemic has focused the attention of public opinion on communicable diseases, underlining the importance of primary prevention measures such as vaccination. We conducted a survey to investigate the behavior of pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding maternal immunization to identify the reasons for vaccine hesitancy in order to overcome them. The new challenge is COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy, and preliminary data show hesitancy towards it. Our analysis may be useful to improve immunization in the pregnant population, including through the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: A targeted survey was performed in Italy including 520 women who experienced in the first trimester of pregnancy, prior to the novel coronavirus spread, the 2019–2020 influenza vaccination campaign and the Tdap vaccine recommendation in the third trimester during the COVID pandemic. They represent a unique model to investigate if the new coronavirus outbreak might have changed attitudes towards vaccination in pregnancy in the same patients. Data were collected from a self-completed paper questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were calculated and percentages were compared using the chi-2 test or Fisher’s exact test. Results: We obtained data from 195 of the 520 women who gave birth during the inclusion period; 325 cases declined to participate in the survey. A total of 8.7% (17 cases) performed flu vaccination in the first trimester of pregnancy (pre-COVID era), 50.8% (99 cases) accepted Tdap immunization during their third trimester of gestation (COVID-19 pandemic) and 6.7% (13 cases) received both vaccines during pregnancy. For both the flu and Tdap shots, pregnant patients were more likely to accept the vaccines if they were recommended by a healthcare provider, whereas the main reason not to be vaccinated was the lack of such a recommendation. Conclusions: Our survey shows that the COVID-19 experience, which has raised awareness as to the role of vaccines in preventable diseases, may positively change attitudes toward immunization in pregnancy. Vaccination must be recommended to all pregnant women and organized during routine prenatal care as an important element for the prevention of communicable diseases. Vaccination hesitancy can be minimized through consistent recommendation to all pregnant women offered by obstetric staff during routine prenatal care. This approach is likely to be effective in terms of building trust in flu and Tdpa immunization among pregnant women, as well as to avoid unjustified hesitancy towards the more recent COVID-19 vaccines.

The cesarean section (CS) rate is very heterogeneous all over the world, reflecting the differences in the access to healthcare services. In higher-income countries, changes observed in the obstetrical population brought to an increased rate of cesarean section for maternal request. Besides, clinicians are facing an increasing number of induction of labor, with the consequent risk of CS if the management is inappropriate. Analyzing the rate of primary CS, the interpretation of intrapartum CTG and a tailored management of labor are also red flags that must be considered. In this optic, the implementation of obstetrics training and simulation programs and the improvement of clinical protocols with the latest evidence can lead to the reduction of unnecessary CS.