Treatment of oral cancers during pregnancy: a case-based discussion
Abstract
Background
Malignancies occur in approximately 1:1000 pregnancies; the most common being breast (46%) and hematological (18%) malignancies. Oral cancers account for only 2% of all cancers in pregnant women, and there are no standard guidelines for the treatment of oral cancer during pregnancy.
Methods
Between 2007 and 2014, our department managed 1109 patients with oral cancers; four (0.4%) had tongue carcinomas during pregnancy. These cases were retrospectively reviewed.
Results
The four women were aged 29–39 (median 32.5) years. Two underwent partial glossectomy at 39 and 40 weeks’ gestation, respectively, one received radiotherapy at 17 weeks’ gestation, and one underwent supraomohyoid neck dissection and hemi-glossectomy with a forearm flap reconstruction.
Conclusion
In addition to tumor factors, the wishes of the patient and her family, gestational age, and fetal and maternal conditions are important factors in deciding on a treatment protocol. Moreover, treatment decisions require multidisciplinary approach.
Keywords
Oral cancer Pregnancy Surgical therapy Chemotherapy RadiotherapyAbbreviations
- CT
Computed tomography
- MRI
Magnetic resonance imaging
- PET/CT
Positron emission tomography/ CT
- SCC
Squamous cell carcinoma
Introduction
When malignant tumors are detected during pregnancy, the prognosis of the mother and/or the fetus may be compromised, depending on the treatment method used. Moreover, it is often difficult to decide on an appropriate treatment policy. It is reported that malignant tumors occur in 1:1000 pregnancies [1, 2]. However, because maternal age of pregnancy is increasing and the age at which cancers occur is decreasing, it is likely that the incidence of malignancy during pregnancy will increase. Regarding the treatment of such cancers, it is necessary to provide sufficient information, after fully collaborating with other departments such as obstetrics and gynecology, personalized care in accordance with the wishes of the patient and her family. Understanding the particular characteristics of a tumor during pregnancy is crucial. However, there are few reports on the management of oral cancers during pregnancy. The aim of this study is a retrospective case review from single institution experience.
Material and methods
A total of 1109 patients with oral cancer were managed at our department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the Tokyo Medical and Dental University between 2007 and 2014. Of these, four (0.4%) were pregnant women with a pathologic diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the tongue. The clinicopathologic data of these patients—including age and gestational age at diagnosis, TNM classification, adverse events, smoking, and alcohol use—were reviewed and the treatment period, type of treatment received, and fetal and maternal outcome were evaluated.
Ethical approval was granted by the institutional review board at the Dental Hospital of the Tokyo Medical and Dental University (No. D2015–600).
Results
Patients’ characteristics and treatment, and maternal and fetal outcomes
Age,years | TNM classification | Smoking | Alcohol | Age of pregnancy at diagnosis,weeks | Treatment period, weeks | Treatment during pregnancy | Fetal outcome | Maternal outcome | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Case 1 | 29 | T2N0M0 | Previous smoker (before pregnancy) | No | 16 | – | – | Pregnancy terminated | Alive with no evidence of disease |
Case 2 | 33 | T2N0M0 | Previous smoker (before pregnancy) | No | 8 | 13 | partial glossectomy | Delivered a healthy baby at 39 weeks | Alive with no evidence of disease |
Case 3 | 32 | rT1N0M0 | non-smoker | No | 22 | 25 | partial glossectomy | Delivered a healthy baby at 40 weeks | Alive with no evidence of disease |
Case 4 | 39 | rT0N0M1 (lung) | non-smoker | No | 5 | 17 | radiotherapy | Cesarean section performed at 29 weeks | Died |
Case 1
In February 2007, a 30-year-old woman at 16 weeks’ gestation was referred to our department with a one-month history of tongue pain. The patient was an ex-smoker, but had no history of alcohol consumption. A hard, endophytic tumor was present in the midsection of the tongue on the right. The lesion measured 2.6 × 2.2 × 0.8 cm and extended to the floor of the mouth (cT2N0M0).
Neither the patient nor her family wished to continue this pregnancy, preferring to concentrate on treating the SCC. Two weeks after terminating the pregnancy, the patient underwent a supraomohyoid neck dissection and hemi-glossectomy with reconstruction using a free forearm flap. Her post-operative course was uneventful. Pathologic examination of the resected specimen confirmed a well-differentiated SCC with clear margins and no cervical lymph node metastases; it was classified as a pT2 N0 tumor. In the 11.5 years since undergoing surgical treatment for this tumor, the patient has remained healthy, with no recurrence.
Case 2
Preoperative oral findings of case 2. The superficial ulcerarive and painful tumor existed over the right border of the tongue with 2.3 × 1.6 cm
At 13 weeks’ gestation, the patient underwent a trans-oral partial glossectomy under general anesthesia. Fentanyl citrate, thiamylal sodium, and sevoflurane were used for anesthetic induction, and sevoflurane and oxygen in air were used for maintenance of anesthesia. Lidocaine 1% with adrenaline (epinephrine) 1:300,000 was used for local anesthesia. Cefazolin was used to prevent postoperative infection, and acetaminophen was used for analgesia. During surgery, the fetus was monitored by ultrasonic examination. The operation time was 1 h 7 min and the anesthesia time was 2 h 1 min. The patient’s postoperative course was uneventful. The tumor margin was positive, therefore, the patient underwent trans-oral wide excision of the lesion under local anesthesia at 17 weeks’ gestation. The margins of the resected specimen were clear. The child was delivered at term and developed normally. In the 7 years since the operation, the patient has remained free of the disease.
Case 3
In March 2012, a 32-year-old woman developed SCC recurrence of the right side of her tongue. At that time, the lesion measured 0.7 × 0.4 cm (rT1N0M0). She was then 22 weeks’ pregnant. She was a non-smoker and had no history of alcohol consumption. In consultation with the doctor in charge of obstetrics and gynecology, it was decided that the following drugs be used in the patient’s perioperative management: cefazolin or cefcapene pivoxil hydrochloride (antibiotics) and flurbiprofen axetil and diclofenac sodium (analgesics).
At 25 weeks of pregnancy, a trans-oral partial glossectomy was performed under general anesthesia. Pathologic examination confirmed a well-differentiated SCC with clear margins. Remifentanil hydrochloride, thiamylal sodium, and sevoflurane were used for anesthetic induction, and remifentanil hydrochloride and oxygen in air were used for maintenance of general anesthesia. Lidocaine 1% with adrenaline (epinephrine) 1:300,000 was used for local anesthesia. Cefazolin and cefcapene pivoxil hydrochloride were used to prevent postoperative infection, and acetaminophen was used for analgesia. Ultrasonic examination was used to monitor the fetus intraoperatively. The operation time was 1 h 13 min and the anesthesia time was 2 h 22 min. The patient’s postoperative course was uneventful. Four months after the operation, she delivered a healthy baby. Six years after the final operation, the patient remains free of the disease.
Case 4
Metastasis findings of case 4. CT image shows multiple pulmonary metastases
Discussion
Characteristics of 39 pregnancy in 38 oral cancer patients
Characteristics | ||
---|---|---|
Age, year (average) | 18–40 | (30.9) |
Age of pregnancy at diagnosis, weeks (average) | ||
5–31 | (18.9) | |
Primary Site | ||
Tongue | 37 | (97.4%) |
Hard plate | 1 | (2.6%) |
Stage | ||
I | 8 | (20.5%) |
II | 10 | (25.6%) |
III | 4 | (10.3%) |
IV | 14 | (35.9%) |
NA | 3 | (7.7%) |
Pathological diagnosis | ||
SCC | 36 | (94.7%) |
Others | 2 | (5.3%) |
Smoking | ||
Yes | 3 | (7.9%) |
No | 20 | (52.6%) |
Before pregnancy | 6 | (15.8%) |
NA | 9 | (23.7%) |
Alcohol | ||
Yes | 0 | (0%) |
No | 29 | (76.3%) |
NA | 9 | (23.7%) |
Treatment during pregnancy | ||
Surgery | 22 | (56.4%) |
CT | 5 | (12.8%) |
RT | 11 | (28.2%) |
None | 9 | (23.1%) |
Fetal outcome | ||
Delibery | 28 | (73.7%) |
Cesarean | 7 | (18.4%) |
Termination | 2 | (5.3%) |
Spontaneous abortion | 1 | (2.6%) |
Maternal outcome | ||
NED | 25 | (65.8%) |
Died | 10 | (26.3%) |
NA | 3 | (7.9%) |
General considerations
The physiologic changes that occur during pregnancy may influence malignancy in various ways. For example, there are many immunosuppressive factors in the serum of pregnant women, particularly related to inhibition of cellular immunity, such as CD8+ T-cells; this results in an increase in antitumor effector cells as pregnancy progresses [23]. Conversely, the number of CD4+ T-cells involved in humoral immunity decreases throughout pregnancy. The Th1/Th2 balance is significantly lower in the pregnant than in the non-pregnant state. During the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, antitumor activity (via Th1) is suppressed while tumor growth (via Th2) is promoted [24], and the number and function of natural killer cells decreases significantly [23, 25]. Furthermore, cancer proliferation has been reported in patients with AIDS and those receiving potent immunosuppressive therapy [26]. These findings highlight a relationship between immune function and the development of cancer. However, it is thought that the effect of declining anti-tumor immunity in pregnancy is mild and does not affect prognosis [27]. In case 3, surgery was deferred from the eighth to the thirteenth weeks of pregnancy. During that time the tumor progressed, but no particularly rapid progression or metastasis was observed.
In terms of imaging studies, CT is said not to cause adverse effects such as fetal malformation or death when the exposure is ≤50 mGy. Moreover, fetal absorbed doses of < 100 mGy are said to be no reason for terminating a pregnancy [28, 29]. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is thought to be safe to perform throughout pregnancy; there is no significant difference in the incidence of stillbirths, fetal malformations, developmental abnormalities, and growth abnormalities between children exposed to MRI in-utero and those not exposed [30]. However, gadolinium contrast medium is reported to be associated with an increased incidence of stillbirth and of rheumatic symptoms and inflammatory skin diseases by 4 years of age in those exposed to it in utero; its use should be avoided in pregnancy [31]. For nuclear medicine investigations, the fetal exposure dose of 18 F-fludeoxyglucose used in positron emission tomography/ CT (PET/CT) is set at 20.9–23.2 mGy [32]. The exposure dose can be reduced by increasing maternal hydration and urination [32]. However, as radioisotopes stored in the bladder may affect the fetus, PET/CT was not performed for any of the patients whose cases have been presented. Simple MRI was performed at 12 weeks in case 2 and at 23 weeks in case 3, and ultrasonography was performed to examine cervical lymph nodes. CT and PET/CT examinations were not performed for any of the four patients.
There are no clear guidelines for the treatment of oral cancer during pregnancy. When deciding on a treatment strategy, the patient’s social background—such as family background, pregnancy history, gestation—as well as the type of malignant tumor and its stage, should be taken into consideration. In early pregnancy, it is possible to terminate the pregnancy so as to concentrate on treating the cancer. Because there are restrictions on terminating a pregnancy and inducing childbirth in mid-pregnancy, there is a high possibility at this stage of choosing treatment while continuing with the pregnancy. In the latter part of the pregnancy, a caesarean section may be performed after 30–34 weeks’ gestation, or delivery may be induced [18, 33]. According to the literature, treatment of oral cancer during pregnancy is diverse, such as surgery (56.4%), chemotherapy (12.8%), radiotherapy (28.2%), no treatment during pregnancy (23.1%) (Table 2).
Surgical management
Regarding surgical therapy, it is necessary to be aware that because both cell-mediated and humoral immunity are suppressed during pregnancy, the risk of postoperative infection is high [3]. In the second trimester, the anatomic and physiologic changes in the mother’s body are relatively mild, making it the safest period in which to perform surgery [20, 34]. Commonly used anesthetic agents are reported not to carry an increased risk of teratogenicity. However, it is important to avoid the use of other teratogenic drugs (such as tetracycline antibiotics and phenobarbital) and to control maternal and fetal circulation and respiration intraoperatively. In pregnancy, the body is prone to hypoxemia because functional residual capacity decreases and oxygen consumption increases by approximately 20% [34, 35, 36]. Furthermore, since uteroplacental blood flow is not under autonomic regulation, it is important to maintain maternal blood pressure and oxygenation [35]. In cases 2 and 3, surgery was performed under general anesthesia at weeks 13 and 25, respectively; the subsequent delivery, and maternal and fetal growth were unaffected. Local anesthetics are administered cautiously to pregnant women in Japan as safety regarding their use in pregnancy has not been established. In terms of safety in pregnancy, the US Food and Drug Administration classifies lidocaine, etidocaine, and prilocaine as category B drugs and bupivacaine as a category C drug because all can cause fetal bradycardia. All local anesthetic agents should be administered in the lowest possible dose that provides pain relief [37].
Radiation therapy conditions
Characteristics of 11 cases of pregnancy
Characteristics | ||
---|---|---|
Age, year (average) | 26–38 | (30.1) |
Age of pregnancy at diagnosis, weeks (average | ||
5–28 | (16.5) | |
Age of pregnancy at treatment, weeks (average) | ||
7–27 | (20.1) | |
Stage | ||
II | 3 | (27.3%) |
IV | 6 | (54.5%) |
NA | 2 | (18.2%) |
A dose of radiotherapy, Gy (average) | ||
39–66 | (54.9) | |
Fetal outcome | ||
Delibery | 7 | (63.6%) |
Cesarean | 3 | (27.3%) |
Spontaneous abortion | 1 | (9.1%) |
Maternal outcome | ||
NED | 7 | (63.6%) |
Died | 3 | (27.3%) |
NA | 1 | (9.1%) |
Systemic Therapy Conditions.
In terms of chemotherapy, the timing of its use is especially important. If administered in the second and third trimesters, after organogenesis has taken place, the incidence of in utero fetal development failure and malformation is said to be not much different from that in observed in the general population. A three-week interval between labor and chemotherapy is recommended to avoid fetal myelosuppression [40]. Given the increased plasma volume and changes in circulatory dynamics that occur during pregnancy, the optimal dose of chemotherapeutic drugs has not been conclusively determined. Although many anticancer drugs undergo placental transfer, fetal blood concentrations of these drugs are reportedly lower than maternal blood concentrations because of placental drug transporter protein expression and adjustment [40]. In case 4, when pulmonary metastases were detected, chemoradiotherapy (with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) was recommended. However, the patient and her family refused chemotherapy; hence, only radiotherapy was administered during pregnancy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, due to social changes in terms of the increasing age of childbearing, the incidence of oral cancers in pregnant women is anticipated to increase. When deciding on a treatment strategy, multiple factors must be considered including patient and family wishes, social background, gestational age, and tumor stage. Moreover, a treatment strategy should be planned in a multidisciplinary fashion.
Notes
Acknowledgments
This work was not grant supported. The authors have no conflicting financial interests. This work was presented at the 40th annual meeting of Japan Society of Head and Neck Cancer.
Funding
The authors declare that they have no funding body.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets during and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Authors’ contributions
KS, HS, and HH were responsible for the planning and revision. KS was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors was responsible for data collection, and read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical approval was granted by the institutional review board at the Dental Hospital of the Tokyo Medical and Dental University (No. D2015–600).
Consent for publication
Appropriate consent obtained.
Competing intersts
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Pentheroudakis G, Pavlidis N. Cancer and pregnancy: poena magna, not anymore. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:126–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Pavlidis NA. Coexistence of pregnancy and malignancy. Oncologist. 2002;7:279–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Lloyd CJ, Paley MD, Penfold CN, Varadarajan V, Tehan B, Gollins SW. Microvascular free tissue transfer in the management of squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue during pregnancy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;41:109–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Mhallem Gziri M, Han SN, Van Calsteren K, Heyns L, Delaere P, Nuyts S, et al. Tongue cancers during pregnancy: case reports and review of literature. Head Neck. 2013;35:E102–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Shibuya H, Saiot M, Horiuchi JI, Suzuki S. Treatment of malignant head and neck tumors during pregnancy--a report of 3 cases. Acta Oncol. 1987;26:237–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Layton SA, Rintoul M, Avery BS. Oral carcinoma in pregnancy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992;30:161–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Lasaridis N, Tilaveridis I, Karakasis D. Management of a carcinoma of the tongue during pregnancy: report of case. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996;54:221–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Prado KL, Nelson SJ, Nuyttens JJ, Williams TE, Vanek KN. Clinical implementation of the AAPM task group 36 recommendations on fetal dose from radiotherapy with photon beams: a head and neck irradiation case report. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2000;1:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Koike TU, Kobayashi S, Kurashina H, Yamazaki K. T. Suamous cell carcionoma of the tongue during pregnancy experiences in two-year treatments. Oral Oncol Extra. 2005;41:7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Chow VL, Chan JY, Ng RW, Wei WI. Management of head and neck tumours during pregnancy: case report and literature review. Asian J Surg. 2008;31:199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Atabo A, Bradley PJ. Management principles of head and neck cancers during pregnancy: a review and case series. Oral Oncol. 2008;44:236–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Tapisiz OL, Gungor T, Ustunyurt E, Ozdal B, Bilge U, Mollamahmutoglu L. An unusual case of lingual alveolar soft part sarcoma during pregnancy. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;47:212–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Cheung VY, Sirkin WL. Listeriosis complicating pregnancy. CMAJ. 2009;181:821–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Yokoshima K, Nakamizo M, Sakanushi A, Ozu R, Yamaguchi S, Tone Y, et al. Surgical management of tongue cancer during pregnancy. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2012;39:428–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Shen S, Xu L, Yin X, Fan X, Zhang C, Hze-Khoong EP, et al. A case of a squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue during pregnancy. Oral Oncol. 2011;47:924–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Unsworth JD, Baldwin A, Byrd L. Systemic lupus erythematosus, pregnancy and carcinoma of the tongue. BMJ Case Rep. 2013;2013.Google Scholar
- 17.Eliassen AM, Hauff SJ, Tang AL, Thomas DH, McHugh JB, Walline HM, et al. Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in pregnant women. Head Neck. 2013;35:335–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Terada T, Uwa N, Sagawa K, Mohri T, Kida K, Saeki N, et al. A case of tongue carcinoma resection and reconstruction with microsurgical free flap during pregnancy. Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 2015;118:46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Prabhu RV, Dinkar A, Spadigam A, Prabhu V. Low-grade papillary adenocarcinoma of minor salivary glands in pregnancy. Indian J Cancer. 2015;52:644–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Tagliabue M, Elrefaey SH, Peccatori F, Favia G, Navach V, Pignataro L, et al. Tongue cancer during pregnancy: surgery and more, a multidisciplinary challenge. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;98:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Terenzi V, Cassoni A, Della Monaca M, Priore P, De Felice F, Musio D, et al. Oral cancer during pregnancy. Oral Oncol. 2016;59:e1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Murphy J, Berman DR, Edwards SP, Prisciandaro J, Eisbruch A, Ward BB. Squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue during pregnancy: a case report and review of the literature. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74:2557–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Watanabe M, Iwatani Y, Kaneda T, Hidaka Y, Mitsuda N, Morimoto Y, et al. Changes in T, B, and NK lymphocyte subsets during and after normal pregnancy. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1997;37:368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Saito S, Umekage H, Sakamoto Y, Sakai M, Tanebe K, Sasaki Y, et al. Increased T-helper-1-type immunity and decreased T-helper-2-type immunity in patients with preeclampsia. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1999;41:297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Okamura K, Furukawa K, Nakakuki M, Yamada K, Suzuki M. Natural killer cell activity during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;149:396–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Quereux C, Hourdequin P, Saniez D, Remy G. Cervical pathology and immunodepression. Contracept Fertil Sex. 1994;22:771–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Jacob JH, Stringer CA. Diagnosis and management of cancer during pregnancy. Semin Perinatol. 1990;14:79–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Martin DD. Review of radiation therapy in the pregnant cancer patient. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54:591–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Minakami H, Maeda T, Fujii T, Hamada H, Iitsuka Y, Itakura A, et al. Guidelines for obstetrical practice in Japan: Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) and Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (JAOG) 2014 edition. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40:1469–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Yoshioka T, Ogawa M, Takahashi O, Ota H, Tanaka T. Management of pregnant women with gynecological malignanci. Obstet Gynecol Ther. 1999;79:385–9.Google Scholar
- 31.Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Bharatha A, Montanera WJ, Park AL. Association between MRI exposure during pregnancy and fetal and childhood outcomes. JAMA. 2016;316:952–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G, Ziegler SI, Munzing W, Muller SP, et al. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:608–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Gwyn K, Ellis P, Blohmer JU, Schlegelberger B, et al. Breast carcinoma during pregnancy. International recommendations from an expert meeting. Cancer. 2006;106:237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Van De Velde M, De Buck F. Anesthesia for non-obstetric surgery in the pregnant patient. Minerva Anestesiol. 2007;73:235–40.Google Scholar
- 35.Nejdlova M, Johnson TN. Anaesthesia for non-obstetric procedures during pregnancy. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2012;12:203–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Biro P. Difficult intubation in pregnancy. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011;24:249–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Razeghinejad MRM, Masoumpour MM, Eghbal MHM, Myers JSM, Moster MRM. Glaucoma surgery in pregnancy: a case series and literature review. Iran J Med Sci. 2016;41:437–45.Google Scholar
- 38.Otake M, Schull WJ. Radiation-related small head sizes among prenatally exposed A-bomb survivors. Int J Radiat Biol. 1993;63:255–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Stovall M, Blackwell CR, Cundiff J, Novack DH, Palta JR, Wagner LK, et al. Fetal dose from radiotherapy with photon beams: report of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group no. 36. Med Phys. 1995;22:63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Esposito S, Tenconi R, Preti V, Groppali E, Principi N. Chemotherapy against cancer during pregnancy: a systematic review on neonatal outcomes. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e4899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.