Title: Effect of Pre Evacuation Serum Β hCG Levels on Post Evacuation Β hCG Regression in Molar Pregnancy

Authors: Dr Bindu P, Dr Preeti Nair

 DOI:  https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i5.82

Abstract

Background: Gestational trophoblastic disease encompasses several disease processes that originate in the placenta. Before 1969, metastatic choriocarcinoma was almost invariably fatal, whereas most patients are now cured and usually retain reproductive function. The basis for this dramatic change is earlier diagnosis, the ability to precisely measure human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), and the availability of effective chemotherapy the cure rate is greater than 90% even in the presence of widespread metastasis[1]. Precise follow-up of patients and precise monitoring using a reliable assay of hCG are essential to good results.

Aim of the study:  was to study the effect of pre evacuation Serum β hCG levels on the post evacuation regression of β hCG levels in molar pregnancy.

Methodology: This study was conducted for period of 1 year at a tertiary care center Sree Avittom Thirunal Hospital, Government Medical College, Trivandrum, a cohort of patients who attended the vesicular mole clinic  following evacuation of molar pregnancy  where recruited.

 Statistical tests used are mean, SD, Percentage, chi square and Odds Ratio to assess association of the selected parameters with delayed regression of serum β hCG levels in molar pregnancy.

Results: Of the 95 patients who met the inclusion criteria and recruited in this study of 28 were late regressers of β hCG included as cases and 67 were controls. Maximum number of cases in this study were in the age group of 20-30 years. Both the cases and controls were comparable with respect to age.( X2 =0.821 P=0.663) No significant association. In this study majority of the patients were Hindus.(X2=0.136 P=0.934)No statistically significant association was obtained with religion on β hCG regression. Majority of patients In this study belonged to low socio-economic status, (X2=4.135 P=0.04) low socio-economic status was found to be statistically significant. Blood group was not found to be an important factor affecting β hCG regression (X2=0.503 P=0.918).In this study, 60.7% of cases were Primi gravidas and among controls 55.2% were Primi gravidas. Previous conception was not found to be statistically significant.(X2=3.166 P=0.367).Period of gestation was not found to be an important factor affecting β hCG regression. (X2=0.778 P=0.477) Uterine size statistically significant effect on β hCG regression. In this study, 78.6% cases and only 34.3% controls had uterine size >POA. Odds ratio calculated was 7.014 CI=2.494 to 19.727 and X2=15.505 P=0.00. 32.1% of cases had moderate proliferation and 14.9% of controls had moderate proliferation. X2=2.476 P=0.29 Effect of trophoblastic proliferation was not found to be statistically significant. 50% cases had theca lutein cysts when compared to 26.9% of controls. X2=4.731 P=0.028 OR=2.722 CI=1.088 to 6.809.Presence of theca luetin cyst was found to be statistically significant.82.1% of cases in this study had complete moles, when compared to 56.7% of controls, X2=5.55 P=0.015 OR=3.511 CI=1.191 to 10.394 found to be statistically significant. In this study, 50% cases had β hCG >40,000 while only 20.9% controls had the same. This was found to be statistically significant, X2=8.047 P=0.05, Odds ratio was 3.78 CI=1.5 to 9.7. Level of pre-evacuation β hCG had Statistically significant effect on β hCG regression. 

Conclusion: Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) is a highly curable group of pregnancy related tumours; approximately 50% of cases of GTN arise from molar pregnancy. The serial quantitative measurement of hCG is essential for the diagnosis, monitoring the efficacy of treatment, and follow -up of patients to detect a neoplastic change at the earliest.

Keywords- Gestational trophoblastic disease, Partial molar pregnancy, Complete molar pregnancy, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).

References

1.      Lurain JR. Gestational trophoblastic disease I: epidemiology, pathology,clinical presentation and diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease, and management of hydatidiform mole. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203(6):531–9.

2.      Schorge JO, Goldstein DP, Bernstein MR, Berkowitz RS. Recent advances in gestational trophoblastic disease. J Reprod Med. 2000 Sep. 45(9):692-700.

3.      Seckl MJ. Gestational trophoblastic dise-ase. The Lancet 2010; 376(9742):717-29.

4.    Berkowitz RS, Goldstein DP. Current management of gestational trophoblastic diseases. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 112:654–662.

5.      Lurain JR, Brewer JI, Torok EE, Halpern B. Natural history of hydatidiform mole after primary evacuation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Mar 1. 145(5):591-5.

6.      Goto S, Yamada A, Ishizuka T, Tomoda Y. Development of postmolar trophoblastic disease after partial molar pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol. 1993 Feb. 48(2):165-70.

7.      Cheung AN, Khoo US, Lai CY, et al. Metastatic trophoblastic disease after an initial diagnosis of partial hydatidiform mole: genotyping and chromosome in situ hybridization analysis. Cancer. 2004 Apr 1. 100(7):1411-7.

8.      Menczer J, Girtler O, Zajdel L, Glezerman M. Metastatic trophoblastic disease following partial hydatidiform mole: case report and literature review. Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Aug. 74(2):304-7.  

9.      Grimes DA. Epidemiology of gestational trophoblastic disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Oct 1. 150(3):309-18.

10.  Jeffers MD, O'Dwyer P, Curran B, Leader M, Gillan JE. Partial hydatidiform mole: a common but underdiagnosed condition. A 3-year retrospective clinicopathological and DNA flow cytometric analysis. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1993 Oct. 12(4):315-23.

11.  Palmer JR. Advances in the epidemiology of gestational trophoblastic disease. J Reprod Med. 1994 Mar. 39(3):155-62.

12.  Bandy LC, Clarke-Pearson DL, Hammond CB. Malignant potential of gestational trophoblastic disease at the extreme ages of reproductive life. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Sep. 64(3):395-9.

13.  Bracken MB. Incidence and aetiology of hydatidiform mole: an epidemiological review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987 Dec. 94(12):1123-35.

14.  Hurteau JA. Gestational trophoblastic disease: management of hydatidiform mole. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Sep. 46(3):557-69.

15.  Amir SM, Osathanondh R, Berkowitz RS, Goldstein DP. Human chorionic gonado-tropin and thyroid function in patients with hydatidiform mole. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Nov 15. 150(6):723-8.

16.  Sun SY, Melamed A, Joseph NT, et al. Clinical presentation of complete hydati-diform mole and partial hydatidiform mole at a regional trophoblastic disease center in the United States over the past 2 decades. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Nov 19.

17.  Berkowitz RS, Goldstein DP, Bernstein MR. Natural history of partial molar pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Nov. 66(5):677-81.

18.  Fishman DA, Padilla LA, Keh P, Cohen L, Frederiksen M, Lurain JR. Management of twin pregnancies consisting of a complete hydatidiform mole and normal fetus. Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Apr. 91(4):546-50.

19.  Steller MA, Genest DR, Bernstein MR, Lage JM, Goldstein DP, Berkowitz RS. Natural history of twin pregnancy with complete hydatidiform mole and coexisting fetus. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Jan. 83(1):35-42.

20.  Florio P, Severi FM, Cobellis L, et al. Serum activin A and inhibin A. New clinical markers for hydatidiform mole. Cancer. 2002 May 15. 94(10):2618-22.

21.  Fulop V, Mok SC, Berkowitz RS. Molecular biology of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a review. J Reprod Med. 2004 Jun. 49(6):415-22. 

Corresponding Author

Dr Bindu P

Additional Professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology