Currently, there is no meta-analysis comparing intravaginal misoprostol plus intracervical Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol alone for term pregnancy without identifying risk factors. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing concurrent intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. We systematically searched Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Collaboration databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intracervical Foley catheter plus intravaginal misoprostol and intravaginal misoprostol alone using the search terms “Foley”, “misoprostol”, “cervical ripening”, and “induction” up to 29 January 2019. Data were extracted and analyzed by two independent reviewers including study characteristics, induction time, cesarean section (C/S), clinical suspicion of chorioamnionitis, uterine tachysystole, meconium stain, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions. Data was pooled using random effects modeling and calculated with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooled analysis from eight studies, including 1110 women, showed that labor induction using a combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol decreased induction time by 2.71 h (95% CI −4.33 to −1.08, p = 0.001), as well as the risk of uterine tachysystole and meconium staining (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30–0.99 and RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32–0.73, respectively) significantly compared to those using intravaginal misoprostol alone. However, there was no difference in C/S rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78–1.11) or clinical suspicion of chorioamnionitis rate (RR 1.22, CI 0.58–2.57) between the two groups. Labor induction with a combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol may be a better choice based on advantages in shortening induction time and reducing the risk of uterine tachysystole and meconium staining compared to intravaginal misoprostol alone.

A combination of cytoreductive surgery, either primary (PCS) or interval (ICS), and chemotherapy with a platinum-paclitaxel regimen is the well-accepted treatment for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), fallopian tube cancer (FTC), and primary peritoneal serous carcinoma (PPSC), but it is still uncertain whether a combination of dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and low-dose triweekly cisplatin is useful in the management of these patients. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of women with advanced-stage EOC, FTC, and PPSC treated with PCS and subsequent dose-dense weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) and low-dose triweekly cisplatin (20 mg/m²). Between January 2011 and December 2017, 32 women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC–IV EOC, FTC, or PPSC were enrolled. Optimal PCS was achieved in 63.5% of patients. The mean and median progression-free survival was 36.5 and 27.0 months, respectively (95% confidence interval (CI): 26.8–46.2 and 11.3–42.7 months, respectively). The mean overall survival was 56.0 months (95% CI: 43.9–68.1 months), and the median overall survival could not be obtained. The most common all-grade adverse events (AEs) were anemia (96.9%), neutropenia (50%), peripheral neuropathy (28.1%), nausea and vomiting (34.4%), and thrombocytopenia (15.6%). These AEs were predominantly grade 1/2, and only a few patients were complicated by grade 3/4 neutropenia (21.9%) and anemia (6.3%). A multivariate analysis indicated that only suboptimal PCS was significantly correlated with a worse prognosis, resulting in an 11.6-fold increase in the odds of disease progression. In conclusion, our data suggest that dose-dense weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) combined with low-dose triweekly cisplatin (20 mg/m²) is a potentially effective and highly tolerable front-line treatment in advanced EOC, FTC, and PPSC. Randomized trials comparing the outcome of this regimen to other standard therapies for FIGO stage IIIC–IV EOC, FTC, and PPSC are warranted.

Preterm birth represents a great burden to the healthcare system, resulting in the consideration for the use of tocolytic therapy to provide a “better time” for delivery in order to buy time to accelerate fetal lung maturity, thereby minimizing prematurity-related morbidity and mortality. However, the benefits and potential side effects and risks of tocolytic treatment for preterm birth should be carefully balanced. Although many countries and societies provide guidelines or consensuses for the management for preterm birth, there is no standardized national guideline or consensus in Taiwan. As such, great heterogeneity is suspected in preterm labor management, contributing to the uncertainty of attitudes and practice patterns of obstetric specialists in Taiwan. This study attempts to understand the attitudes and practice patterns regarding tocolytic therapy in Taiwan. A paper-based survey was conducted at the 2020 Taiwan Society of Perinatology Conference on 8 December 2020, exploring how obstetric specialists would use tocolytics under nine different clinical scenarios, such as a short cervix, preterm labor, maintenance tocolysis, preterm premature rupture of membranes, etc. Three hundred ten specialists attended the conference, and 77 responded to the survey with a response rate of 24.8%. According to the survey, many of these specialists would prescribe tocolytics for less evidence-based indications, including 22% for abdominal tightness, 46% for a short cervix, 60% for maintenance tocolysis, and 89% for repeat tocolysis, with the preferred first line medication being ritodrine and nifedipine. We concluded that tocolysis is widely accepted and practiced in Taiwan. More research is needed to include Taiwan-specific economic and cultural factors as well as associated adverse effects and patients’ outcomes.