Most patients with advanced cancer develop diverse symptoms that can limit the efficacy of pain treatment and undermine their quality of life. The present study surveys symptom prevalence, etiology and severity in 593 cancer patients treated by a pain service. Non-opioid analgesics, opioids and adjuvants were administered following the WHO-guidelines for cancer pain relief. Other symptoms were systematically treated by appropriate adjuvant drugs. Pain and symptom severity was measured daily by patient self-assessment; the physicians of the pain service assessed symptom etiology and the severity of confusion, coma and gastrointestinal obstruction at each visit. The patients were treated for an average period of 51 days. Efficacy of pain treatment was good in 70%, satisfactory in 16% and inadequate in 14% of patients. The initial treatment caused a significant reduction in the average number of symptoms from four to three. Prevalence and severity of anorexia, impaired activity, confusion, mood changes, insomnia, constipation, dyspepsia, dyspnoea, coughing, dysphagia and urinary symptoms were significantly reduced, those of sedation, other neuropsychiatric symptoms and dry mouth were significantly increased and those of coma, vertigo, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, intestinal obstruction, erythema, pruritus and sweating remained unchanged. The most frequent symptoms were impaired activity (74% of days), mood changes (22%), constipation (23%), nausea (23%) and dry mouth (20%). The highest severity scores were associated with impaired activity, sedation, coma, intestinal obstruction, dysphagia and urinary symptoms. Of all 23 symptoms, only constipation, erythema and dry mouth were assessed as being most frequently caused by the analgesic regimen. In conclusion, the high prevalence and severity of many symptoms in far advanced cancer can be reduced, if pain treatment is combined with systematic symptom control. Nevertheless, general, neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal symptoms are experienced during a major part of treatment time and pain relief was inadequate in 14% of patients. Cancer pain management has to be embedded in a frame of palliative care, taking all the possibilities of symptom management into consideration.

Bisphosphonates and denosumab are used extensively in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Despite their proven efficacy in the reduction of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, their optimal duration of use has not been determined. The occurrence of adverse effects, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and atypical femoral fractures (AFF), has raised the issue of bisphosphonate or denosumab discontinuation ("drug holiday") after a certain treatment period. To assess the effect of bisphosphonate and denosumab discontinuation on fracture risk, as well as its possible benefits in reducing the risk of adverse effects. Systematic review and consensus of expert opinion. Discontinuation of bisphosphonates should be considered in all patients who have beentreated for more than five years with alendronate, risedronate or zoledronic acid. In view of the limited evidence, no robust recommendations can be made for ibandronate and denosumab. If the patient has not experienced fractures before or during therapy and the fracture risk is low, a "drug holiday" canbe recommended. Although there is no solid evidence, 1-2 years for risedronate, 3-5 years for alendronate and 3-6 years for zoledronic acid are suggested. After this time, the patient should be reassessed. If a new fracture is experienced, or fracture risk has increased or BMD remains low (femoral neck T-score ≤-2.5), anti-osteoporotic treatment should be resumed. In the case of denosumab discontinuation, close monitoring is suggested, due to the possibility of rebound fractures.

Postmenopausal women with an intact uterus using estrogen therapy should receive a progestogen for endometrial protection. International guidelines on menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) do not specify on progestogen type, dosage, route of application and duration of safe use. At the same time, the debate on bioidentical hormones including micronized progesterone increases. Based on a systematic literature review on micronized progesterone for endometrial protection, an international expert panel’s recommendations on MHT containing micronized progesterone are as follows: (1) oral micronized progesterone provides endometrial protection if applied sequentially for 12–14 days/month at 200 mg/day for up to 5 years; (2) vaginal micronized progesterone may provide endometrial protection if applied sequentially for at least 10 days/month at 4% (45 mg/day) or every other day at 100 mg/day for up to 3–5 years (off-label use); (3) transdermal micronized progesterone does not provide endometrial protection.

Is the steroid hormone profile in follicular fluid (FF) at the time of oocyte retrieval different in naturally matured follicles, as in natural cycle IVF (NC-IVF), compared with follicles stimulated with conventional gonadotrophin stimulated IVF (cIVF)? Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH), testosterone (T) and estradiol (E2) concentrations are ∼3-fold higher, androstenedione (A2) is ∼1.5-fold higher and luteinizing hormone (LH) is ∼14-fold higher in NC-IVF than in cIVF follicles, suggesting an alteration of the follicular metabolism in conventional gonadotrophin stimulated IVF. In conventional IVF, the implantation rate of unselected embryos appears to be lower than in NC-IVF, which is possibly due to negative effects of the stimulation regimen on follicular metabolism. In NC-IVF, the intrafollicular concentration of AMH has been shown to be positively correlated with the oocyte fertilization and implantation rates. Furthermore, androgen treatment seems to improve the ovarian response in low responders. This cross-sectional study involving 36 NC-IVF and 40 cIVF cycles was performed from 2011 to 2013. Within this population, 13 women each underwent 1 NC-IVF and 1 cIVF cycle. cIVF was performed by controlled ovarian stimulation with HMG and GnRH antagonists. Follicular fluid was collected from the leading follicles. AMH, T, A2, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), E2, FSH, LH and progesterone (P) were determined by immunoassays in 76 women. Aromatase activity in follicular fluid cells was analysed by a tritiated water release assay in 33 different women. For statistical analysis, the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U or Wilcoxon tests were used. In follicular fluid from NC-IVF and from cIVF, median levels were 32.8 and 10.7 pmol/l for AMH (P < 0.0001), 47.2 and 18.8 µmol/l for T (P < 0.0001), 290 and 206 nmol/l for A2 (P = 0.0035), 6.7 and 5.6 pg/ml for DHEA (n.s.), 3292 and 1225 nmol/l for E2 (P < 0.0001), 4.9 and 7.2 mU/ml for FSH (P < 0.05), 14.4 and 0.9 mU/ml for LH (P < 0.0001) and 62 940 and 54 710 nmol/l for P (n.s.), respectively. Significant differences in follicular fluid concentrations for AMH, E2 and LH were also found in the 13 patients who underwent both NC-IVF and cIVF when they were analysed separately in pairs. Hormone analysis in serum excluded any relevant impact of AMH, T, A2, and E2 serum concentration on the follicular fluid hormone concentrations. Median serum concentrations were 29.4 and 0.9 mU/ml for LH (P < 0.0001) and 2.7 and 23.5 nmol/l for P (P < 0.0001) after NC-IVF and c-IVF, respectively. Positive correlations were seen for FF-AMH with FF-T (r = 0.35, P = 0.0002), FF-T with FF-LH (r = 0.48, P < 0.0001) and FF-E2 with FF-T (r = 0.75, P < 0.0001). The analysis of aromatase activity was not different in NC-IVF and cIVF follicular cells. Any association between the hormone concentrations and the implantation potential of the oocytes could not be investigated as the oocytes in cIVF were not treated individually in the IVF laboratory. Since both c-IVF and NC-IVF follicles were stimulated by hCG before retrieval, the endocrine milieu in the natural cycle does not represent the pure physiological situation. The endocrine follicular milieu and the concentration of putative markers of oocyte quality, such as AMH, are significantly different in gonadotrophin-stimulated conventional IVF compared with natural cycle IVF. This could be a cause for the suggested lower oocyte quality in cIVF compared with naturally matured oocytes. The reasons for the reduced AMH concentration might be low serum and follicular fluid LH concentrations due to LH suppression, leading initially to low follicular androgen concentrations and then to low follicular AMH production. Funding for this study was obtained from public universities (for salaries) and private industry (for consumables). Additionally, the study was supported by an unrestricted grant from MSD Merck Sharp & Dohme GmbH and IBSA Institut Biochimique SA. The authors are clinically involved in low-dose monofollicular stimulation and IVF therapies, using gonadotrophins from all gonadotrophin distributors on the Swiss market, including Institut Biochimique SA and MSD Merck Sharp & Dohme GmbH. Otherwise, the authors have no competing interests. Not applicable.