No abstract

Background COVID-19 is only partly understood, and the level of evidence available in terms of pathophysiology, epidemiology, therapy, and long-term outcome remains limited. During the early phase of the pandemic, it was necessary to effectively investigate all aspects of this new disease. Autopsy can be a valuable procedure to investigate the internal organs with special techniques to obtain information on the disease, especially the distribution and type of organ involvement. Methods During the first wave of COVID-19 in Germany, autopsies of 19 deceased patients were performed. Besides gross examination, the organs were analyzed with standard histology and polymerase-chain-reaction for SARS-CoV-2. Polymerase chain reaction positive localizations were further analyzed with immunohistochemistry and RNA-in situ hybridization for SARS-CoV-2. Results Eighteen of 19 patients were found to have died due to COVID-19. Clinically relevant histological changes were only observed in the lungs. Diffuse alveolar damage in considerably different degrees was noted in 18 cases. Other organs, including the central nervous system, did not show specific micromorphological alterations. In terms of SARS-CoV-2 detection, the focus remains on the upper airways and lungs. This is true for both the number of positive samples and the viral load. A highly significant inverse correlation between the stage of diffuse alveolar damage and viral load was found on a case and a sample basis. Mediastinal lymph nodes and fat were also affected by the virus at high frequencies. By contrast, other organs rarely exhibited a viral infection. Moderate to strong correlations between the methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 were observed for the lungs and for other organs. Conclusions The lung is the most affected organ in gross examination, histology and polymerase chain reaction. SARS-CoV-2 detection in other organs did not reveal relevant or specific histological changes. Moreover, we did not find CNS involvement.

No abstract

Aims This is an official guideline published and coordinated by the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the Austrian Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (OEGGG). Because of their rarity and heterogeneous histopathology, uterine sarcomas are challenging in terms of how they should be managed clinically, and treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach. To our knowledge, there are currently no binding evidence-based recommendations for the appropriate management of this heterogeneous group of tumors. Methods This S2k guideline was first published in 2015. The update published here is the result of the consensus of a representative interdisciplinary group of experts who carried out a systematic search of the literature on uterine sarcomas in the context of the guidelines program of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG. Members of the participating professional societies achieved a formal consensus after a moderated structured consensus process. Recommendations The consensus-based recommendations and statements include the epidemiology, classification, staging, symptoms, general diagnostic work-up and general pathology of uterine sarcomas as well as the genetic predisposition to develop uterine sarcomas. Also included are statements on the management of leiomyosarcomas, (low and high-grade) endometrial stromal sarcomas and undifferentiated uterine sarcomas and adenosarcomas. Finally, the guideline considers the follow-up and morcellation of uterine sarcomas and the information provided to patients.

There is currently no consensus regarding preferred clinical outcome measures following image-guided tumor ablation or clear definitions of oncologic end points. This consensus document proposes standardized definitions for a broad range of oncologic outcome measures with recommendations on how to uniformly document, analyze, and report outcomes. The initiative was coordinated by the Society of Interventional Oncology in collaboration with the Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-Event End Points in Cancer Trials, or DATECAN, group. According to predefined criteria, based on experience with clinical trials, an international panel of 62 experts convened. Recommendations were developed using the validated three-step modified Delphi consensus method. Consensus was reached on when to assess outcomes per patient, per session, or per tumor; on starting and ending time and survival time definitions; and on time-to-event end points. Although no consensus was reached on the preferred classification system to report complications, quality of life, and health economics issues, the panel did agree on using the most recent version of a validated patient-reported outcome questionnaire. This article provides a framework of key opinion leader recommendations with the intent to facilitate a clear interpretation of results and standardize worldwide communication. Widespread adoption will improve reproducibility, allow for accurate comparisons, and avoid misinterpretations in the field of interventional oncology research.