Severe menstrual pain with HMB has a much more profound effect on all aspects of women's QoL than HMB alone; it accounts for more days in bed and for loss of productivity.

BackgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) exceeding 80 mL per cycle leads to considerable adverse impact on a woman’s iron metabolism, incidence of iron deficiency and anaemia, as well as her functioning in society.The objective of the study is to determine the potential efficacy of a Monophasic oestradiol-17β-nomegestrol acetate (E2/Nomac) combined oral contraceptive pill on measured menstrual blood loss as a pilot study in 12 women with objectively demonstrated HMB (>80 mL per cycle). The pilot study aimed to recruit 20 women.MethodConsented women completed the HMB questionnaire. The blood was taken for haemoglobin, transferrin, iron saturation, TIBC, serum iron and ferritin. Women were given verbal and written detailed instructions for MBL collection for three control cycles and four treatment cycles.ResultsForty-three women were enrolled, but 31 were ineligible and withdrawn (mainly for failure to meet eligibility criteria). Twelve women entered the treatment phase and commenced the E2/nomegestrol acetate (NOMAC) 24/4 combined pill treatment on the first day of their fourth cycle. All women with complete MBL measurements had >50% reduction in MBL on treatment (exact 95% confidence interval for proportion with MBL reduction >50%: 69 to 100%). The mean percent reduction in MBL between pretreatment and during treatment was 76.9%, and the median was 79% with a range of 53.7 to 100%.ConclusionsThis pilot study indicates that the E2/NOMAC COC will provide a useful potential option for treating HMB in women with FIGO classification AUB-E (primary endometrial causes) but requires a larger placebo-controlled study for confirmation.

Background/objectivesPathology laboratories are required to determine or estimate the measurement uncertainty for all quantitative results, but there is no literature on the uncertainty in margin measurements for skin cancer excisions.MethodsSix pathologists measured 4–14 histological margins in each of 10 basal cell carcinoma.ResultsThe mean of measurements from all the margins from all the cases was 1.8 mm (range 0 and 6 mm). Regarding the overall variance in margin measurements across the ten cases, 25% was from variation within cases (differences in margin measurement for a given case, because of different margins and different pathologists measuring each margin, SD 0.7 mm). For a given case, we estimate that 95% of margin measurements would fall approximately within±1.4 mm of the mean measurement for that case. When only pathologists’ closest margin for each case were included (for the six cases with uninvolved margins), 6% of the overall variance was from differences within cases (because of different pathologists’ measurements of the closest margin, SD 0.2 mm). For a given case without an involved margin, 95% of closest margin measurements would fall approximately within±0.5 mm of the mean closest measurement for that case.ConclusionsClinicians should be aware there is uncertainty in reported histological margins.