The first major revision in the systematic description of ovulatory disorders in nearly 50 years has been proposed by a consensus of experts organized by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
“The FIGO HyPO-P system for the classification of ovulatory disorders is submitted for consideration as a worldwide standard,” according to the writing committee, who published their methodology and their proposed applications in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
The classification system was created to replace the much-modified World Health Organization system first described in 1973. Since that time, many modifications have been proposed to accommodate advances in imaging and new information about underlying pathologies, but there has been no subsequent authoritative reference with these modifications or any other newer organizing system.
The new consensus was developed under the aegis of FIGO, but the development group consisted of representatives from national organizations and the major subspecialty societies. Recognized experts in ovulatory disorders and representatives from lay advocacy organizations also participated.
The HyPO-P system is based largely on anatomy. The acronym refers to ovulatory disorders related to the hypothalamus (type I), the pituitary (type II), and the ovary (type III).
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), one of the most common ovulatory disorders, was given a separate category (type IV) because of its complexity as well as the fact that PCOS is a heterogeneous systemic disorder with manifestations not limited to an impact on ovarian function.
As the first level of classification, three of the four primary categories (I-III) focus attention on the dominant anatomic source of the change in ovulatory function. The original WHO classification system identified as many as seven major groups, but they were based primarily on assays for gonadotropins and estradiol.
The new system “provides a different structure for determining the diagnosis. Blood tests are not a necessary first step,” explained Malcolm G. Munro, MD, clinical professor, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of California, Los Angeles. Munro was the first author of the publication.
The classification system “is not as focused on the specific steps for investigation of ovulatory dysfunction as much as it explains how to structure an investigation of the girl or woman with an ovulatory disorder and then how to characterize the underlying cause,” Munro said in an interview. “It is designed to allow everyone, whether clinicians, researchers, or patients, to speak the same language.”
New System Employs Four Categories
The four primary categories provide just the first level of classification. The next step is encapsulated in the GAIN-FIT-PIE acronym, which frames the presumed or documented categories of etiologies for the primary categories. GAIN stands for genetic, autoimmune, iatrogenic, or neoplasm etiologies. FIT stands for functional, infectious/inflammatory, or trauma and vascular etiologies. PIE stands for physiological, idiopathic, and endocrine etiologies.
By this methodology, a patient with irregular menses, galactorrhea, and elevated prolactin and an MRI showing a pituitary tumor would be identified a type 2-N, signifying pituitary (type 2) involvement with a neoplasm (N).
A third level of classification permits specific diagnostic entities to be named, allowing the patient in the example above to receive a diagnosis of a prolactin-secreting adenoma.
Not all etiologies can be identified with current diagnostic studies, even assuming clinicians have access to the resources, such as advanced imaging, that will increase diagnostic yield. As a result, the authors acknowledged that the classification system will be “aspirational” in at least some patients, but the structure of this system is expected to lead to greater precision in understanding the causes and defining features of ovulatory disorders, which, in turn, might facilitate new research initiatives.
In the published report, diagnostic protocols based on symptoms were described as being “beyond the spectrum” of this initial description. Rather, Munro explained that the most important contribution of this new classification system are standardization and communication. The system will be amenable for educating trainees and patients, for communicating between clinicians, and as a framework for research where investigators focus on more homogeneous populations of patients.
“There are many causes of ovulatory disorders that are not related to ovarian function. This is one message. Another is that ovulatory disorders are not binary. They occur on a spectrum. These range from transient instances of delayed or failed ovulation to chronic anovulation,” he said.
The new system is ” a welcome update,” according to Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, both in Orlando.
Trolice pointed to the clinical value of placing PCOS in a separate category. He noted that it affects 8%-13% of women, making it the most common single cause of ovulatory dysfunction.
“Another area that required clarification from prior WHO classifications was hyperprolactinemia, which is now placed in the type II category,” Trolice said in an interview.
Better terminology can help address a complex set of disorders with multiple causes and variable manifestations.
“In the evaluation of ovulation dysfunction, it is important to remember that regular menstrual intervals do not ensure ovulation,” Trolice pointed out. Even though a serum progesterone level of higher than 3 ng/mL is one of the simplest laboratory markers for ovulation, this level, he noted, “can vary through the luteal phase and even throughout the day.”
The proposed classification system, while providing a framework for describing ovulatory disorders, is designed to be adaptable, permitting advances in the understanding of the causes of ovulatory dysfunction, in the diagnosis of the causes, and in the treatments to be incorporated.
“No system should be considered permanent,” according to Munro and his coauthors. “Review and careful modification and revision should be carried out regularly.”
Munro reports financial relationships with AbbVie, American Regent, Daiichi Sankyo, Hologic, Myovant, and Pharmacosmos. Trolice reports no potential conflicts of interest.
This article originally appeared on MDedge.com, part of the Medscape Professional Network.
Source: Read Full Article