Fibroid Tumors
Fibroid Tumors
Fibroid Tumors
www. AJOG.org
OBSTETRICS
outcomes in singleton pregnancies. We aimed to estimate risk for adverse obstetric outcomes that are associated with fibroid tumors in twin
pregnancies.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of twin pregnancies with
1 fibroid tumor on second trimester ultrasound examination. Outcomes included small-for-gestational-age fetal growth, preterm delivery, preterm rupture of membranes, abruption, preeclampsia, and intrauterine fetal death. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used
to evaluate the impact of fibroid tumors on outcomes in twin pregnancies compared with twin pregnancies without fibroid tumors.
RESULTS: Of 2378 nonanomalous twin pregnancies, 2.3% had fibroid
verse outcomes in singleton pregnancies with fibroid tumors, twin pregnancies with fibroid tumors do not appear to be at increased risk for
complications compared with those pregnancies without fibroid
tumors.
Key words: fibroid tumor, preterm birth, twin pregnancy
Cite this article as: Stout MJ, Odibo AO, Shanks AL, et al. Fibroid tumors are not a risk factor for adverse outcomes in twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2013;208:68.e1-5.
on obstetric outcomes in singleton pregnancies with conflicting results. In a cohort of women with singleton pregnancies from our institution, we found a
positive association between fibroid tumors and multiple adverse obstetric outcomes that included malpresentation,
placenta previa, preterm birth, and intrauterine fetal death.4
Given the trend for women to delay
childbearing and the high prevalence
of fibroid tumors in reproductive age
women, the question of whether fibroid
tumors influence obstetric outcomes is
not infrequent for obstetric providers. In
addition, the incidence of twin pregnancies has risen 47% since 1990 and currently accounts for approximately 32 per
1000 births in 2009.5,6 All previous investigations, which include the one from
our institution, estimated the risk for adverse outcomes only among singleton
gestations, which left obstetric providers
to extrapolate the impact of fibroid tumors in twin pregnancies from singleton
studies. Thus, we aimed to investigate
whether women with twin pregnancies
and fibroid tumors are also at increased
risk for adverse obstetric outcomes.
68.e1
Obstetrics
www.AJOG.org
Ultrasound examinations were performed by dedicated obstetric and gynecologic sonographers with final interpretation and diagnoses made by Maternal
Fetal Medicine attending physicians. Fetal number, chorionicity, placental location, fetal anatomy, and maternal anatomy are recorded routinely as part of
second-trimester anatomic surveys. Gestational age was determined by the best
data available from the last menstrual
period that was consistent with ultrasound dating (5 days in the first trimester or 14 days in the second trimester). If last menstrual period was
unknown or inconsistent with ultrasound dating, the pregnancy was dated
according to the earliest ultrasound data
available. Chorionicity is assigned on the
basis of the evaluation of fetal genders,
placental masses, visualization of the intersection of fetal membranes with placental masses (lambda sign), and
thickness of fetal membranes. If chorionicity was determined at an earlier ultrasound examination, repeat examination
of the routine markers of chorionicity, as
appropriate for gestational age, was performed to confirm that the findings were
consistent with previous documentation. Maternal anatomy, which included
presence, location, and sizes of the 6 largest or most clinically relevant fibroid tumors were documented according to
recommendations of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.7 Fibroid size routinely is measured in 3 dimensions. In addition, fibroid location
within the uterus and relative to placental location is documented routinely.
Twin pregnancies with 1 fibroid tumors were compared with twin pregnancies without fibroid tumors. Obstetric
outcomes were collected prospectively as
the pregnancies continued through the
study period and were entered into the
perinatal database by trained obstetric
research coordinators. Primary outcomes included preterm delivery and
small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants
in 1 or both twins (defined as birthweight 10th percentile for gestational
age according to the Alexander growth
standard8). Other outcomes that were
evaluated included placenta previa, placental abruption (defined clinically by
R ESULTS
There were a total of 2445 women with
twin pregnancies in the cohort. Of those,
67 women (2.7%) were excluded because of major fetal anomalies, which left
2378 women in the final nonanomalous
cohort that was examined for obstetric
outcomes. Of 2378 women with nonanomalous twin pregnancies, 55 women
(2.3%) had fibroid tumors, and 2323
women (97.7%) did not. Of the 55 pregnancies with fibroid tumors, 51 of the fibroid tumors (92.7%) were 6 cm in
greatest dimension, and 4 fibroid tumors
(7.3%) were 6 cm.
Women with twin pregnancies that
were complicated by fibroid tumors
Research
were, on average, more likely to be of advanced maternal age, have gestational diabetes mellitus, report alcohol use, have
had a previous cesarean delivery, have
lower parity, and have fewer living children compared with women with twin
pregnancies without fibroid tumors (Table 1). However, twin pregnancies with
fibroid tumors had similar prevalence of
black women compared with twin
pregnancies without fibroid tumors. In
addition, smoking during pregnancy,
gestational age at study ultrasound examination, monochorionicity, previous
birth of a neonate who weighed 5
pounds, and previous preterm birth did
not differ between twin pregnancies with
fibroid tumors and twin pregnancies
without fibroid tumors.
Pregnancy outcomes are shown in Table 2. Women with twin pregnancies and
fibroid tumors were no more likely to
deliver preterm at 37 weeks gestation
(71.4% vs 62.3%; adjusted odds ratio
[OR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI],
0.72.3), 34 weeks gestation (25.0% vs
24.0%; adjusted OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5
1.9), 28 weeks gestation (7.1% vs
6.7%; relative risk [RR], 1.0; 95% CI,
0.4 2.9), or 24 weeks gestation (3.8%
vs 3.4%; RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.3 4.1) compared with twin pregnancies without fibroid tumors. Similarly, twin pregnancies with and without fibroid tumors had
statistically similar risk for preterm premature rupture of membranes (5.7% vs
11.6%; RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21.5). There
was no difference in risk for placental abruption or preeclampsia in twin pregnancies with or without fibroid tumors.
There were no cases of twin pregnancies with placenta previa; therefore, no
meaningful comparisons can be made
regarding the impact of fibroid tumors
on this outcome.
Fetal outcomes are shown in Table 3.
There was no increase in the risk for SGA
in twin pregnancies in the presence of
fibroid tumors relative to twins in the absence of fibroid tumors (40.0% vs 36.0%;
adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.72.0), even
after adjustment for advanced maternal
age and alcohol use. In addition, there
was no increase in the risk for intrauterine fetal death in twin gestations with fibroid tumors compared with those ges-
68.e2
Research
Obstetrics
www.AJOG.org
TABLE 1
60.0
24.7
.01
Black race, %
29.1
23.0
.33
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
a
Gravidity, n
2.4 1.5
2.6 1.6
2.02.8
2.62.7
0.6 1.0
1.0 1.2
0.40.9
1.01.1
.14
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Range
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
a
Parity, n
.01
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Range
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2
27.1
20.9
.30
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Current smoker, %
7.3
10.6
.4
21.8
12.3
.03
17.6
6.1
.01
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1.8
1.2
.65
5.5
2.8
.28
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
19.8 1.7
19.7 1.6
.6
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Range
19.320.2
19.619.8
19.6
23.0
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Monochorionic gestation, %
.56
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1.8
6.6
.14
Spontaneous abortions, n
0.3 0.6
0.4 0.7
.58
0.20.5
0.30.4
0.6 1.0
1.0 1.2
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
a
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Range
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
a
Living children, n
.03
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
C OMMENT
This cohort of twin pregnancies suggests
that those pregnancies with fibroid tumors do not have significantly increased
risk for adverse obstetric outcomes compared with twin pregnancies without fibroid tumors. Specifically, we found no
increased risk for preterm birth, preterm
premature rupture of membranes, placental abruption, SGA, or intrauterine fetal death when we compared them
with twin pregnancies without fibroid
tumors.
Multiple studies have investigated the
impact of fibroid tumors on pregnancy
outcomes in singleton gestations.10-16
However, no previous studies have commented on the impact of fibroid tumors
in twin pregnancies, which left providers
to extrapolate associations from studies
of singletons. A retrospective cohort of
64,000 singleton pregnancies from our
institution found an increased risk for
placenta previa, placental abruption,
68.e3
0.40.9
0.91.0
Range
1.8
1.4
.01
7.3
7.3
.98
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
a
Research
Obstetrics
www.AJOG.org
TABLE 2
Pregnancy-related adverse outcomes for twin pregnancies with (n 55) and without (n 2323) fibroids
Fibroid
tumor, %
Outcome
No fibroid
tumor, %
Unadjusted relative
risk (95% CI)
Adjusted odds
ratio (95% CI)
P value
Delivery at 37 wk gestation
71.4
62.3
1.1 (1.01.4)
1.2 (0.72.3)
Delivery at 34 wk gestation
25.0
24.0
1.0 (0.71.6)
1.0 (0.51.9)
.80
Delivery at 28 wk gestation
7.1
6.7
1.0 (0.42.7)
NA
.9
Delivery at 24 wk gestation
3.8
3.4
1.0 (0.34.1)
NA
.9
5.7
11.6
0.5 (0.21.5)
NA
.2
Placenta previa
0.8
NA
NA
.52
Abruption
1.9
1.9
1.0 (0.17.3)
NA
.98
19.2
20.0
1.0 (0.51.7)
0.9 (0.41.9)
.69
.17
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
b
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
c
Preeclampsia
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Adjusted for advanced maternal age, tobacco use, previous preterm birth; b Adjusted for previous preterm birth; c Adjusted for parity, body mass index.
comes are rare, and, with the fixed number of patients in the cohort, we were not
powered to detect a significant difference. However, a post hoc power calculation was performed that revealed that
we had 99% and 97% power to detect a 2-fold increased risk for SGA and
preterm birth at 34 weeks gestation, respectively. Thus, we argue that the negative findings in this study are not attributable to a type 2 error. Instead, a more
probable explanation is that twin pregnancies are surveyed more frequently
with growth ultrasound examinations
and antenatal testing; thus, the risks for
adverse outcomes that are seen in singleton cohorts with fibroid tumors may be
avoided in twin gestations. At our institution, twins generally are treated with
ultrasound examination for fetal growth
every 2-4 weeks. Antenatal testing with
nonstress tests or biophysical profiles are
used in twin pregnancies at 32-34 weeks
gestation or earlier if an indication arises
(for example preeclampsia or twin-twin
transfusion syndrome).17 Thus, we propose that one interpretation of our findings may be that testing routinely, when
applied to fetal well-being in twins and
planned earlier deliveries in twins, may
be mitigating adverse effects that could
be attributable to fibroid tumors that are
detected in singleton cohorts. The singleton cohort from our institution demonstrated a slightly increased risk for
preterm birth that was associated with
fibroid tumors in contrast to no increased risk for preterm birth that was
demonstrated in this cohort of twins.4
We propose that the multiple risk factors
that increase the risk for preterm birth in
twins, relative to singletons generally (eg,
uterine distension, indicated preterm
delivery), likely blunt the mild effect of
fibroid tumors on the risk for preterm
birth that is demonstrated in the singleton cohort.
Our study has several limitations.
First, although this was a large cohort of
twin pregnancies that were available for
investigation, the number of twin pregnancies with fibroid tumors was small
enough that further stratification by fibroid size would yield unstable results
with wide confidence intervals and
therefore was not performed. Second,
the location of the fibroid tumor within
the uterine wall was not known. However, we previously demonstrated that
the location of fibroid tumors with respect to the placenta does not matter and
that pregnancies with a directly subplacental fibroid tumor have similar risks as
pregnancies with a fibroid tumor distant
from the placenta.4 Third, ascertainment
of fibroid tumors based on ultrasound
examination during pregnancy may be
imperfect. We propose that ultrasound
examination is the most clinically relevant tool. Furthermore, the most likely
direction for ascertainment bias in an ultrasound diagnosis is misclassification of
patients with fibroid tumors as control
subjects or missing a fibroid that is present. This misclassification would bias
TABLE 3
Fetal adverse outcomes for twin pregnancies with and without fibroids
Outcome
Intrauterine growth restriction
Fibroid
tumor, %
No fibroid
tumor, %
Unadjusted relative
risk (95% CI)
Adjusted odds
ratio (95% CI)
a
P value
40.0
36.0
1.1 (0.81.5)
1.1 (0.72.0)
.6
3.6
3.7
0.9 (0.23.5)
NA
.9
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
68.e4
Research
Obstetrics
68.e5
www.AJOG.org
based on the presence or absence of fibroid tumors.
f
REFERENCES
1. Practice committee of American Society for
Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with
Society of Reproductive Surgeons. Myomas
and reproductive function. Fertil Steril 2008;
90(suppl):S125-30.
2. Shokeir T, El-Shafei M, Yousef H, Allam AF,
Sadek E. Submucous myomas and their implications in the pregnancy rates of patients with
otherwise unexplained primary infertility undergoing hysteroscopic myomectomy: a randomized matched control study. Fertil Steril 2010;
94:724-9.
3. Pritts EA, Parker WH, Olive DL. Fibroids and
infertility: an updated systematic review of the
evidence. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1215-23.
4. Stout MJ, Odibo AO, Graseck AS, Macones
GA, Crane JP, Cahill AG. Leiomyomas at routine second-trimester ultrasound examination
and adverse obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1056-63.
5. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura
SJ, Mathews TJ, Osterman MJ. Births: final
data for 2008. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2010;59:1,
3-71.
6. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al.
Births: final data for 2009. Nal Vital Stat Rep
2011;60:1-70.
7. American Institute for Ultrasound in Medicine Practice Guideline: Obstetric Ultrasound.
American Institute for Ultrasound in Medicine
2007.
8. Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor
J, Kogan M. A United States national reference