OBJECTIVE: What is the recommended management for medically assisted reproduction (MAR) in patients with a viral infection or disease, based on the best available evidence in the literature?
CONCLUSIONS: The ESHRE guideline on MAR in patients with a viral infection/disease makes 78 recommendations on prevention of horizontal and vertical transmission before, during and after MAR, and the impact on its outcomes, and these also include recommendations regarding laboratory safety on the processing and storage of gametes and embryos testing positive for viral infections.
BACKGROUND: The development of new and improved anti-viral medications has resulted in improved life expectancy and quality of life for patients with viral infections/diseases. Patients of reproductive age are increasingly exploring their options for family creation.
UNASSIGNED: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for the development of ESHRE guidelines. After the formulation of nine key questions for six viruses (hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, human T-lymphotropic virus I/II and Zika virus) by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 2 November 2020 and written in English were included in the review. Evidence was analyzed by female, male or couple testing positive for the virus.
METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. There were 61 key questions to be answered by the guideline development group (GDG), of which 12 were answered as narrative questions and 49 as PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions. A stakeholder review was organized after the finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.
RESULTS: This guideline aims to help providers meet a growing demand for guidance on the management of patients with a viral infection/disease presenting in the fertility clinic.The guideline makes 78 recommendations on prevention of viral transmission before and during MAR, and interventions to reduce/avoid vertical transmission to the newborn. Preferred MAR treatments and interventions are described together with the effect of viral infections on outcomes. The GDG formulated 44 evidence-based recommendations-of which 37 were formulated as strong recommendations and 7 as weak-33 good practice points (GPP) and one research only recommendation. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, two by moderate-quality evidence, 15 by low-quality evidence and 27 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in the field of MAR in patients with a viral infection/disease, a list of research recommendations is provided.
CONCLUSIONS: Most interventions included are not well-studied in patients with a viral infection/disease. For a large proportion of interventions, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required for these interventions, especially in the field of human papilloma virus (HPV). Such future studies may require the current recommendations to be revised.
CONCLUSIONS: The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in MAR for patients with a viral infection/disease, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field.
BACKGROUND: The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives, all work was provided voluntarily. A.D. reports research fees from Ferring and Merck, consulting fees from Ferring, outside the submitted work. C.P. reports speakers fees from Merck and MSD outside the submitted work. K.T. reports speakers fees from Cooper Surgical and Ferring and consultancy fees as member of the advisory board BioTeam of Ferring, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
CONCLUSIONS: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at  www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

BACKGROUND: Penile cancer is a rare malignancy with prevalence higher in areas of high Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) such as Africa, Asia and South America. In middle- and low-income countries where circumcision is not routinely practiced, the rate of penile cancer could be ten times higher.
UNASSIGNED: A literature review was conducted from 1992 to 2019 using PubMed, Google Scholar, African Journal Online and Google with inclusion of 27 publications with emphasis on the Sub-Saharan literature. Findings revealed that most men with penile cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) present with locally advanced to advanced disease with devastating consequences. The option of penile sparing procedure is reduced with most treatment option directed to mutilating surgeries. The lack of appropriate chemotherapy and radiotherapy worsens the prognosis in the region.
CONCLUSIONS: Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination may not be cost-effective for most regions in SSA. Therefore, early childhood circumcision might be the best advocated alternative for prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether triage for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) from the updated American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology cervical cancer screening guidelines is applicable in Korean women.
METHODS: We investigated women with ASC-US or LSIL including referred from local hospitals visited for cervical cancer screening at Korea University Guro Hospital from February 2004 to December 2014. Detailed information on the results of Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA tests, and cervical biopsies were collected through chart review. Cervical biopsy results were compared in eligible women according to individual Pap smear findings and HPV DNA status.
RESULTS: Of 216,723 possible cases, 3,196 were included. There were 212 (6.6%) women with ASC-US and 500 (15.6%) with LSIL. The risk of ≥cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 was significantly higher in women who were ASC-US/HPV+ than ASC-US/HPV- and LSIL/HPV+ than LSIL/HPV- (93.3% vs. 6.7% and 96.7% vs. 3.3%, P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). The risk of ≥CIN 3 was also significantly higher in women who were ASC-US/HPV+ than ASC-US/HPV- and LSIL/HPV+ than LSIL/HPV- (97.0% vs. 3.0% and 93.0% vs. 7.0%, P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Age-stratified analysis revealed that more CIN 2 or CIN 3 was diagnosed in women aged 30 to 70 with ASC-US or LSIL when HPV DNA was present.
CONCLUSIONS: Observation with Pap and HPV DNA tests rather than immediate colposcopy is a reasonable strategy for ASC-US or LSIL when the HPV DNA test is negative, especially in women aged 30 to 70. Reflection of these results should be considered in future Korean screening guidelines.

Cervical cancer (CC) is the second most common cancer worldwide, strongly linked to high-risk human papilloma virus infection. Although screening programs have led to a relevant reduction in the incidence and mortality due to CC in developed countries, it is still an important cause of mortality in undeveloped countries. Clinical stage is still the most relevant prognostic factor. In early stages, the primary treatment is surgery or radiotherapy, whereas concomitant chemo-radiotherapy is the conventional approach in locally advanced stages. In the setting of recurrent or metastatic CC, for the first time ever, the combination of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab prolongs the overall survival beyond 12 months. Therefore, this regimen is considered by most of the oncologist a new standard of care for metastatic/recurrent CC.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the number of adolescent females < age 21 years with pre-cancerous cervical lesions (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN 2+) or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)) in Connecticut in the time period before new cervical screening recommendations went into effect and identify any demographic associations with a diagnosis of CIN 3.
METHODS: Descriptive analysis, surveillance.
METHODS: CIN 2+/AIS precancerous cervical lesions have been reportable conditions in Connecticut since 2008 for the purpose of public health surveillance.
METHODS: All women < 21 years old with pre-cancerous cervical lesions diagnosed between 2008 and 2010 (N = 681).
RESULTS: Of the 681 reports, 478 (70.2%) women had CIN 2, 92 had CIN 2/3 (13.5%), and 110 (16.2%) had CIN 3. CIN 3 occurred at an average rate statewide of 19/100,000 per year for women ages 13-20. The majority of adolescents with pre-cancerous cervical lesions CIN 2+/AIS (70%) were 19 and 20 years of age. CIN 3 vs CIN 2 is not found to be associated with age, insurance status, specimen collection year, or living in a non-urban vs urban county.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of cases of pre-cancerous cervical lesions in adolescents diagnosed before new screening recommendations were in effect are CIN 2 and therefore, likely to regress. CIN 3 has been infrequently found in adolescent females under age 19 years; however, under the new screening guidelines, 110 cases of CIN 3 including 77 in women 19-20 years could have been missed in the adolescent female in Connecticut from 2008-2010 (54.4 per 100,000 per year for 19-20 year olds). Based upon these findings, it is necessary that clinicians educate adolescents and parents about the new screening guidelines and the importance of establishing regular cervical cancer screening beginning at age 21.