Hysteroscopic resectoscope-directed biopsies and outpatient endometrial sampling for assessment of tumor histology in women with endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia

Treatment outcomes according to various progestin treatment strategies in patients with atypical hyperplasia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia - Multicenter retrospective study (KGOG2033)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate pathologic complete response (pCR) and recurrence outcomes using various progestin treatment strategies in patients with atypical hyperplasia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (AH/EIN).

METHODS

Medical records of patients diagnosed with AH/EIN and undergoing follow-up endometrial biopsy after progestin treatment between 2011 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical factors and treatment outcomes were analyzed according to initial progestin treatment (oral progestin [OP], levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device [LNG-IUD], and combination), OP dose, and maintenance treatment using Pearson's χ2, Fisher's exact test, and Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Of 124 patients included, 74, 37, and 13 were in the OP, LNG-IUD, and combination groups, respectively. The pCR rate was 79.8% and recurrence rate was 21.2%. The pCR rates within 3 and 6 months were significantly higher in the OP group than in the LNG-IUD group, but were not significantly different within 12 and 24 months. Recurrence rate was significantly higher in the OP group than in the LNG-IUD group. The pCR rate and recurrence rate had no significant differences between the combination group and the other groups. Excluding the LNG-IUD group, 53 and 34 patients received low- and high-dose OP, respectively. The pCR and recurrence rates were comparable between the low- and high-dose OP groups. Maintenance therapy was significantly associated with lower recurrence rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Although OP alone achieved more short-term pCR than the other groups, more recurrences occurred after pCR than LNG-IUD alone. High-dose OP as well as combination of OP and LNG-IUD did not increase pCR or reduce recurrence. Maintenance therapy may reduce the recurrence rate after pCR.

Management of Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia: ACOG Clinical Consensus No. 5

SUMMARY

Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) often is a precursor lesion to adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment for EIN-AEH. When a conservative (fertility-sparing) approach to the management of EIN-AEH is under consideration, it is important to attempt to exclude the presence of endometrial cancer to avoid potential undertreatment of an unknown malignancy in those who have been already diagnosed with EIN-AEH. Given the high risk of progression to cancer, those who do not have surgery require progestin therapy (oral, intrauterine, or combined) and close surveillance. Although data are conflicting and limited, studies have demonstrated that treatment with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device results in a higher regression rate when compared with treatment with oral progestins alone. Limited data suggest that cyclic progestational agents have lower regression rates when compared with continuous oral therapy. After initial conservative treatment for EIN-AEH, early detection of disease persistence, progression, or recurrence requires careful follow-up. Gynecologists and other clinicians should counsel patients that lifestyle modification resulting in weight loss and glycemic control can improve overall health and may decrease the risk of EIN-AEH and endometrial cancer.

Preoperative prediction of high-risk endometrial cancer by expert and non-expert transvaginal ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and endometrial histology

OBJECTIVE

To identify women with high-risk endometrial cancers using expert and non-expert transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) and MRI.

STUDY DESIGN

Myometrial involvement was prospectively evaluated in patients with atypical hyperplasia or endometrial cancer on ultrasound by non-experts at first visit (non-expert-TVS: n = 266) and experts (expert-TVS: n = 188) at second visit. MRI (n = 175) was performed when high-risk cancer was suspected on non-expert-TVS. Preoperatively, high-risk cancer was defined as myometrial involvement ≥50 %, or preoperative unfavorable tumor histology (grade 3 endometrioid, non-endometrioid tumors, or tumor in cervical biopsies) obtained by endometrial sampling or hysteroscopic biopsies. Preoperative evaluations were compared with final histopathology obtained at surgery, high-risk cancer being defined as unfavorable tumor histology or patients with FIGO stage ≥1b.

RESULTS

Preoperative unfavorable tumor histology was seen in 64 women and correctly identified 63 of 128 high-risk cancers. Preoperative diagnosis of unfavorable tumor histology or myometrial involvement ≥50 %, i.e. judged high-risk, had an area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of 79.5 %, 93.8 %, 65.2 % on non-expert-TVS; 85.5 %, 84.4 %, 86.5 % on expert-TVS, and 85.4 %, 89.6 %, 81.2 % on MRI. AUC values were not significantly different between MRI and expert-TVS, but lower on non-expert-TVS (p < 0.02). However, sensitivity was highest on non-expert-TVS, where a low cutpoint for myometrial involvement was used (included potentially deep and difficult evaluations) in contrast to an exact cutpoint of myometrial involvement ≥50 % used on expert-TVS and MRI. The highest AUC, 88.6 %, was seen when MRI was performed in patients with myometrial involvement ≥50 %, determined on non-expert TVS. Sensitivity was reduced to 85.9 %, while specificity increased to 91.3 %. Thus, MRI was needed for risk classification in only 104 (39 %) patients.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostically, expert-TVS and MRI were comparable and superior to non-expert-TVS. However, non-expert-TVS classified all patients with unclear myometrial involvement ≥50 %, and thereby only misdiagnosed 6.2 % of high-risk cases. Non-expert-TVS combined with MRI when myometrial involvement was ≥50 % on non-expert-TVS was a simple and effective method comparable with expert imaging to identify low- and high-risk cancer and select patients for SLND. Addition of MRI to the diagnostic regimen was needed in only 39 % of our patients.