Hydatidiform mole is an abnormal pregnancy in which two copies of paternal genetic material are present. Molar gestation is divided into complete and partial hydatidiform moles. Clinical, morphological, and cytogenetic characteristics are usually sufficient to distinguish them, but and the rare cases that are necessary to know the paternal origin to establish the diagnosis and segment? Mutations in the Gene for Factor V Leiden and G20210A prothrombin polymorphism in women with recurrent spontaneous abortion: a retrospective study in a Brazilian population.

Distinction of hydatidiform moles (HM) from non-molar (NM) specimens and subclassification of HM as complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) versus partial hydatidiform mole (PHM) are important for clinical practice and investigational studies. The issue of diagnostic reproducibility is still unsolved, the lack of diagnostic accuracy based on morphology is substantial with an important interobserver variability, even between experienced gynecologic pathologists. Many ancillary techniques have been investigated in the last years to refine HM diagnosis. p57 (a paternally imprinted, maternally expressed gene) immunohistochemistry, based on the unique genetics of CHM (purely androgenetic), PHM (diandric triploid), and NM specimens (biparental, with allelic balance) can identify CHMs, which lack p57 expression because of a lack of maternal DNA. However, although its role in HM diagnosis is pivotal, it does not allow the distinction of PHM from NM specimens, both of which express p57 due to the presence of maternal DNA. Molecular genotyping, which compares villous and decidual DNA patterns to determine the parental source and ratios of polymorphic alleles, distinguishes purely androgenetic CHM from diandric triploid PHM, and both of these from NM specimens. Beyond the claim of establishing a \"diagnostic truth\", exceptions and peculiar genetic scenarios in the origin of rare CHM and PHM should be kept in mind when approaching any ancillary technique. An algorithmic approach, even in settings with limited resources, can help the pathologists in the diagnostic dilemma of diagnosis of first trimester abortions.

The globally distributed \"Beijing\" lineage of Mycobacterium tuberculosis has been associated with outbreaks worldwide. Laboratory based studies have suggested that Beijing lineage may have increased fitness; however, it has not been established whether these differences are of epidemiological significance with regards to transmission. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review of epidemiological studies of tuberculosis clustering to compare the transmission dynamics of Beijing lineages versus the non-Beijing lineages.
We systematically searched Embase and MEDLINE before 31st December 2018, for studies which provided information on the transmission dynamics of the different M. tuberculosis lineages. We included articles that conducted population-based cross-sectional or longitudinal molecular epidemiological studies reporting information about extent of transmission of different lineages. The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CDR42018088579).
Of 2855 records identified by the search, 46 were included in the review, containing 42,700 patients from 27 countries. Beijing lineage was the most prevalent and highly clustered strain in 72.4% of the studies and had a higher likelihood of transmission than non-Beijing lineages (OR 1·81 [95% 1·28-2·57], I2 = 94·0%, τ2 = 0·59, p < 0·01).
Despite considerable heterogeneity across epidemiological contexts, Beijing lineage appears to be more transmissible than other lineages.

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing hydatidiform moles (HMs) from nonmolar specimens and the subclassification of HM are important because complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) is associated with an increased risk of development of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. However, diagnosis based solely on morphology has poor inter-observer reproducibility. Recent studies have demonstrated that the use of p57KIP2 immunostaining improves diagnostic accuracy for CHM.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of p57KIP2 immunostaining compared with molecular genotyping for the diagnosis of CHM.
METHODS: Major databases were searched from inception to March 2017 using the terms \'hydatidiform mole\', \'p57\', and \'genotyping\', with their variations, and the search limit for the relevant study design.
METHODS: Any cross-sectional study, case series, case-control study, cohort study, or clinical trial that evaluated the accuracy of p57KIP2 immunostaining for the diagnosis of CHM compared with genotyping was included. Case reports, narrative reviews, expert opinions, and animal testing were excluded.
METHODS: Extracted accuracy data were tabulated and pooled using a hierarchical bivariate random effects model.
RESULTS: Bivariate meta-analysis produced a summary sensitivity of 0.984 (95% CI: 0.916-1.000) and specificity of 0.625 (95% CI: 0.503-0.736) with significant heterogeneity for specificity (I2 = 71.8, chi-square P = 0.029). The pooled summary diagnostic odds ratio was 56.54 (95% CI: 11.03-289.74) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.00%, chi-square P = 0.67). The diagnostic performance of the test was high with an area under the curve of (AUC) 0.980.
CONCLUSIONS: p57KIP2 immunostaining is accurate when diagnosing CHM. It can be used as an adjunct test in a combination algorithmic approach.
UNASSIGNED: A meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of p57KIP2 compared with genotyping to diagnose CHM.

Distinguishing hydatidiform moles (HMs) from non-molar specimens and the subclassification of HM are important because complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) is associated with an increased risk of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. However, diagnosis based solely on morphology has poor interobserver reproducibility. Recent studies have demonstrated that the use of p57KIP2 immunostaining improves diagnostic accuracy for CHM.
We will conduct a systematic review of prospective and retrospective studies to evaluate the accuracy of p57KIP2 immunostaining compared with molecular genotyping for the diagnosis of CHM. A high-sensitivity search strategy will be employed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, The Grey Literature Report, OpenGrey, OAIster, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Two reviewers will independently screen all identified references for eligibility and extract data. The methodological quality and bias of the included studies will be assessed according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool, and the overall quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. If a meta-analysis is possible, pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios will be calculated using bivariate random-effects models. Statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated with I 2 statistics and explored through sensitivity analysis.
There is considerable overlap between the histological features of molar and non-molar pregnancies and between complete and partial HMs, which results in significant interobserver variability in the diagnosis of CHM and its mimics. Therefore, molecular techniques are used to correctly diagnosis and treat CHM. However, these molecular diagnostic methods are technically difficult to perform, relatively costly, and unavailable in most pathology laboratories. According to our results, p57KIP2 immunostaining appears to be a practical and accurate adjunct for the diagnosis of CHM and its mimics because this technique is relatively simple, reliable, cost-efficient, and rapid. This systematic review will help to determine whether p57KIP2 immunostaining is an adequate alternative diagnostic test for CHM.
PROSPERO CRD42015024181.