Live births and maintenance with levonorgestrel IUD improve disease-free survival after fertility-sparing treatment of atypical hyperplasia and early endometrial cancer

Translating biological insights into improved management of endometrial cancer

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecological cancer among women in high-income countries, with both incidence and mortality continuing to increase. The complexity of the management of patients with EC has evolved with greater comprehension of the underlying biology and heterogeneity of this disease. With a growing number of novel therapeutic agents available, emerging treatment regimens seem to have the potential to help to address the concerning trends in EC-related mortality. In this Review, we describe the epidemiology, histopathology and molecular classification of EC as well as the role of the new (2023) International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) staging model. Furthermore, we provide an overview of disease management in the first-line and recurrent disease settings. With increasing use of molecular profiling and updates in treatment paradigms, we also summarize new developments in this rapidly changing treatment landscape.

The efficacy of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus oral megestrol acetate in treating atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a superior randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) versus megestrol acetate (MA) in inducing complete regression among women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) who declined hysterectomy.

METHODS

In this single-center, open-label randomized controlled trial, we included 148 women with AEH who declined hysterectomy. We randomized participants to receive either daily oral MA 160 mg (n=74) or apply LNG-IUS (n=74) and scheduled their follow-up by endometrial sampling at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months. The success rate and duration until complete regression were the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean duration until complete regression was 5.52 months (95% confidence interval [CI]=4.85-6.18) for the LNG-IUS group versus 6.87 months (95% CI=6.09-7.64) for the megestrol group (log-rank test p-value=0.011). The cumulative regression rate after 12 months was 91.9% with the LNG-IUS versus 77% with MA (p=0.026). Weight gain in the MA group vs LNG-IUS group after one year (4.7±4 kg vs. 2.7±2.6 kg, 95% CI=0.89-3.12; p=0.001) and after two years of therapy (7.8±5.1 kg vs. 4.1±2.9 kg, 95% CI=2.29-5.06; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared to MA, the LNG-IUS was more efficacious in treating AEH in women who declined hysterectomy, especially those with moderate/severe obesity, with fewer adverse effects and less weight gain. Extending therapy to 12 months for persistent cases would improve regression rates with reasonable safety. Alternate hysteroscopic and office sampling seemed convenient for follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04385667.

Comparative effects of different treatments based on the levonorgestrel intrauterine system in endometrial carcinoma and endometrial hyperplasia patients: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) has been widely used in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC), endometrial hyperplasia without atypical (EH), and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). The purpose of our Network meta-analysis (NMA) is to evaluate the efficacy of the treatments based on the LNG-IUS in patients with EC and EH with or without atypical.

METHODS

We examined PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library up to 22 April 2024 to determine studies reporting treatment outcomes in EC and EH patients receiving LNG-IUS therapy, LNG-IUS + metformin (MET), oral progestins (OP), etc. We used EndNote 9 to select studies, Jadad scale and NOS scale to assess quality, stata(16.0) and R (4.3.1) to analysis the data.

RESULTS

Overall, 28 studies involving 3752 patients were included in our NMA. As for EH patients, LNG-IUS (RR 1.21; 95% CrI [1.11, 1.34]) and LNG-IUS + MET (RR 323.57; 95% CrI [1.61, 214,223,188.1])] significantly increased CR rate in comparison with OP. Based on SUCRA, LNG-IUS + OP was the best treatment to improve CR(SUCRA = 67.2%) in patients with EC, whereas LNG-IUS + MET was superior in increasing CR (SUCRA = 99.8%) than any other treatments for EH patients. Besides, the ranking based on SUCRA illustrated that LNG-IUS alone was the best choice to raise CR rates (SUCRA = 76.7%) for AEH patients. In head-to-head meta-analysis, OP has a higher progression rate (RR 4, 95% CI 1.89-8.46, p = 0.062; I2 = 71.3%), a higher nausea rate (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.24-3.01, p = 0.187; I2 = 40.4%) than LNG-IUS in patients with EH. In contrast, LNG-IUS had a irregular vaginal bleeding rates (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.90, p = 0.034; I2 = 77.7%) than OP in EH patients. In addition, as for AEH patients, OP has a higher persistence rate (RR 4.31, 95% CI 1.43-13.00, p = 0.93; I2 = 0.0%) than LNG-IUS.

CONCLUSION

According to the NMA, LNG-IUS related studies are feasible for conservative therapy in patients with EC and EH with or without atypical. Therefore, concerning the curative effect, we recommend LNG-IUS-based treatments as the best conservative therapy for EC and EH patients. However, future studies require large sample sizes and more outcomes to further evaluate the differences of treatment selections based on LNG-IUS.

Fertility-preserving treatment for stage IA endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The increasing use of fertility-preserving treatments in reproductive-aged patients with early-stage endometrial cancer necessitates robust evidence on the effectiveness of oral progestins and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the outcomes following these 2 primary progestin-based therapies in reproductive-aged patients with early-stage endometrial cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic review of observational studies and randomized controlled trials following the Cochrane Handbook guidance. We conducted a literature search of 5 databases and 1 trial registry from inception of the study to April 16, 2024.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies reporting complete response within 1 year in reproductive-aged patients with clinical stage IA endometrioid cancer undergoing progestin therapy treatment were included. We used data from both observational and randomized controlled studies.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

The primary exposure assessed was the type of progestational treatment (oral progestins or LNG-IUD). The primary outcome was the pooled proportion of the best complete response (CR) within 1 year of primary progestational treatment. We performed a proportional meta-analysis to estimate the treatment response. Sensitivity analyses were performed by removing studies with extreme effect sizes or removing grade 2 tumors. The risk of bias was assessed in each study using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist.

RESULTS

Our analysis involved 754 reproductive-aged patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer, with 490 receiving oral progestin and 264 receiving levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device as their primary progestational treatment. The pooled proportion of the best complete response within 12 months of oral progestin and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device treatment were 66% (95% CI, 55-76) and 86% (95% CI, 69-95), respectively. After removing outlier studies, the pooled proportion was 66% (95% CI, 57-73) for the oral progestin group and 89% (95% CI, 75-96) for the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device group, showing reduced heterogeneity. Specifically, among studies including grade 1 tumors, the pooled proportions were 66% (95% CI, 54-77) for the oral progestin group and 83% (95% CI, 50-96) for the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device group. The pooled pregnancy rate was 58% (95% CI, 37-76) after oral progestin treatment and 44% (95% CI, 6-90) after levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device treatment.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of oral progestins and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device treatment within a 12-month timeframe for patients with early-stage endometrial cancer who desire to preserve fertility. These findings have the potential to assist in personalized treatment decision-making for patients.

Chinese guidelines on the management of endometrial hyperplasia

• Endometrial hyperplasia can be classified as either hyperplasia without atypia or atypical hyperplasia. • Abnormal uterine bleeding is the most common symptom of endometrial hyperplasia. Transvaginal ultrasound is recommended for initial imaging to evaluate endometrial hyperplasia (evidence level 2+), while transrectal ultrasound is recommended for virgo patients (evidence level 3). • Endometrial biopsy should be used to confirm diagnosis in patients where endometrial lesions are suspected. Effective histological approaches to make definite diagnoses include diagnostic curettage (evidence level 2++), hysteroscopic-guided biopsy (evidence level 2+) and endometrial aspiration biopsy (evidence level 2-). • Progesterone is the preferred medication for the treatment of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Compared to oral progestins, placement of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) has been associated with higher regression rates, lower recurrence rates and fewer adverse events which can be the initial treatment method. (Meta evidence level 1-, RCT evidence level 2+). Ultrasound and endometrial biopsies should be performed every 6 months during treatment to evaluate its effect and treatment should continue until no pathological changes are observed in two consecutive endometrial biopsies. Hysterectomy is not the preferred choice of treatment for patients with endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. • Minimally invasive hysterectomy is indicated for patients with endometrial atypical hyperplasia (evidence level 1+), bilateral fallopian tubes should also be removed (evidence level 2+). In cases where surgery cannot be tolerated, fertility is desired or the patient is younger than 45 years old, medical therapy is recommended (evidence level 3). LNG-IUS is the preferred medical therapy method (evidence level 2+). Endometrial pathologic evaluation should be performed every 3 months during conservative treatments, with adjustments made to dosages or approaches based on observed response to medication. Treatment should continue until no pathological changes are detected in two consecutive endometrial biopsies (evidence level 2++). There is no indication of sentinel lymph nodes biopsy and/or lymphadenectomy for hyperplasia with or without atypia. • Total hysterectomy is recommended to treat patients with recurrent endometrial atypical hyperplasia (evidence level 3); however, medical conservative therapy may be considered for patients hoping to become pregnant in the future. • Patients with fully regressed disease who would like to become pregnant should be advised to seek assistance through assisted reproductive technologies (evidence level 3). • Long-term follow-up is suggested for patients after endometrial hyperplasia treatment (evidence level 2+). Patient education is imperative for improving medication adherence, increasing regression rates and lowering recurrence rates (evidence level 3).

Comprehensive Evaluation of a Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device (LNG-IUD), Metformin, and Liraglutide for Fertility Preservation in Endometrial Cancer: Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial

Endometrial cancer is a leading gynecological malignancy, with obesity being a significant risk factor due to increased estrogen production in body fat. Current treatments often involve hysterectomy, which precludes fertility, thus highlighting the need for fertility-preserving options. This study aims to evaluate the combined efficacy of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG-IUD), metformin, and liraglutide for treating women with endometrial hyperplasia or early stage endometrial cancer while preserving fertility. The study will enroll 264 women aged 18-45 with a BMI > 30 who desire uterine preservation. Participants will be randomized into three groups: LNG-IUD alone, LNG-IUD plus metformin, and LNG-IUD plus metformin and liraglutide. Primary outcomes will include complete pathological remission, while secondary outcomes will assess histological changes, glucose, insulin levels, and weight changes over a 12-month period. This study protocol hypothesizes that LNG-IUD combined with metformin and liraglutide may potentially lead to higher regression rates of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) and early stage endometrial cancer (EC) compared to LNG-IUD alone. Furthermore, the protocol anticipates that these combination therapies will demonstrate good tolerability with minimal adverse effects, suggesting the potential benefit of integrating metabolic interventions with LNG-IUD to enhance treatment efficacy while preserving fertility in women with EH and EC.

Our current understanding of the biological impact of endometrial cancer mtDNA genome mutations and their potential use as a biomarker

Endometrial cancer (EC) is a devastating and common disease affecting women's health. The NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program predicted that there would be >66,000 new cases in the United States and >13,000 deaths from EC in 2023, and EC is the sixth most common cancer among women worldwide. Regulation of mitochondrial metabolism plays a role in tumorigenesis. In proliferating cancer cells, mitochondria provide the necessary building blocks for biosynthesis of amino acids, lipids, nucleotides, and glucose. One mechanism causing altered mitochondrial activity is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutation. The polyploid human mtDNA genome is a circular double-stranded molecule essential to vertebrate life that harbors genes critical for oxidative phosphorylation plus mitochondrial-derived peptide genes. Cancer cells display aerobic glycolysis, known as the Warburg effect, which arises from the needs of fast-dividing cells and is characterized by increased glucose uptake and conversion of glucose to lactate. Solid tumors often contain at least one mtDNA substitution. Furthermore, it is common for cancer cells to harbor mixtures of wild-type and mutant mtDNA genotypes, known as heteroplasmy. Considering the increase in cancer cell energy demand, the presence of functionally relevant carcinogenesis-inducing or environment-adapting mtDNA mutations in cancer seems plausible. We review 279 EC tumor-specific mtDNA single nucleotide variants from 111 individuals from different studies. Many transition mutations indicative of error-prone DNA polymerase γ replication and C to U deamination events were present. We examine the spectrum of mutations and their heteroplasmy and discuss the potential biological impact of recurrent, non-synonymous, insertion, and deletion mutations. Lastly, we explore current EC treatments, exploiting cancer cell mitochondria for therapy and the prospect of using mtDNA variants as an EC biomarker.

Fertility-sparing re-treatment for endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia patients with progestin-resistance: a retrospective analysis of 61 cases

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the oncological and reproductive outcomes of fertility-preserving re-treatment in progestin-resistant endometrial carcinoma (EC) and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) women who desire to maintain their fertility.

METHODS

Our study included 61 progestin-resistant EC/AEH patients. These patients underwent treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) solely or a combination of GnRHa with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) or aromatase inhibitor (AI). Histological evaluations were performed every 3-4 months. Upon achieving complete remission (CR), we recommended maintenance treatments including LNG-IUD, cyclical oral contraceptives, or low-dose cyclic progestin until they began attempting conception. Regular follow-up was conducted for all patients. The chi-square method was utilized to compare oncological and fertility outcomes, while the Cox proportional hazards regression analysis helped identify risk factors for CR, recurrence, and pregnancy.

RESULTS

Overall, 55 (90.2%) patients achieved CR, including 90.9% of AEH patients and 89.7% of EC patients. The median re-treatment time was 6 months (ranging from 3 to 12 months). The CR rate for GnRHa alone, GnRHa + LNG-IUD and GnRHa + AI were 80.0%, 91.7% and 93.3%, respectively. After a median follow-up period of 36 months (ranging from 3 to 96 months), 19 women (34.5%) experienced recurrence, 40.0% in AEH and 31.4% in EC patients, with the median recurrence time of 23 months (ranging from 6 to 77 months). Among the patients who achieved CR, 39 expressed a desire to conceive, 20 (51.3%) became pregnant, 11 (28.2%) had successfully deliveries, 1 (5.1%) was still pregnant, while 8 (20.5%) suffered miscarriages.

CONCLUSION

GnRHa-based fertility-sparing treatment exhibited promising oncological and reproductive outcomes for progestin-resistant patients. Future larger multi-institutional studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Navigating Fertility Preservation Options in Gynecological Cancers: A Comprehensive Review

(1) Background: Currently, an increasing number of women postpone pregnancy beyond the age of 35. Gynecological cancers affect a significant proportion of women of reproductive age, necessitating the development of fertility preservation methods to fulfill family planning. Consequently, providing treatment options that preserve fertility in women diagnosed with gynecological cancers has become a crucial component of care for survivors. (2) Methods: We conducted an extensive search of relevant scientific publications in PubMed and Embase databases and performed a narrative review, including high-quality peer-reviewed research on fertility after being treated for gynecologic cancers, reporting pregnancy rates, birth rates, and pregnancy outcomes in cancer survivors as well as therapeutic options which partially preserve fertility and methods for obtaining a pregnancy in survivors. (3) Discussion: The medicine practiced today is focused on both treating the neoplasm and preserving the quality of life of the patients, with fertility preservation being an important element of this quality. This leads to an improved quality of life, allowing these women to become mothers even in the seemingly adverse circumstances posed by such a pathology. However, although there are guidelines on female fertility preservation in the context of neoplasms, an analysis shows that physicians do not routinely consider it and do not discuss these options with their patients. (4) Conclusions: Advancements in medicine have led to a better understanding and management of gynecological neoplasms, resulting in increased survival rates. Once the battle against these neoplasms is won, the issue of preserving the quality of life for these women arises, with fertility preservation being an important aspect for women who have not yet fulfilled their family planning desires at the time of diagnosis. It is important for patients to be informed about the available options for fertility preservation and to be encouraged to make informed decisions in collaboration with their medical team. Standardized recommendations for onco-fertility into guidelines should be taken into consideration in the future.

Controversies in the Surgical Management of Gynecologic Cancer: Balancing the Decision to Operate or Hesitate

Cancer outcomes are largely measured in terms of disease-free survival or overall survival, which is highly dependent on timely diagnosis and access to treatment methods available within the country's existing health care system. Although cancer survival rates have markedly led in the past few decades, any improvement in the 5-year survival of gynecologic cancers has been modest, as in the case of ovarian and cervical cancers, or has declined, as in the case of endometrial cancer. The lack of effective screening options contributes to many women presenting with advanced-stage disease and the need for radical approaches to treatment. Although treatment for early-stage disease can lead to a cure, advanced-stage disease is fraught with a high potential for morbidity and mortality, and recent clinical trials have aimed to assess the noninferiority of minimally invasive options versus aggressive surgical approaches. Of particular interest is fertility-sparing treatments for endometrial and cervical cancers, which have recently been on the rise among younger women. Balancing morbidity with the risk of mortality, and loss of fertility and quality of life requires a targeted patient-centered approach to treatment. This is an ongoing area of intense research and sometimes may challenge current treatment paradigms. In this two-part review, we present an overview of current approaches to gynecologic cancer treatment and the need to de-escalate radical surgical approaches and preserve fertility. We also review the intricacies of ovarian and advanced endometrial cancer treatment, exploring the nuances in surgical debulking timing and its impact on outcomes.

Metformin and progestins in women with atypical hyperplasia or endometrial cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess metformin's effectiveness in adding it to progestin-based hormone therapy for treating atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and early endometrial cancer (EEC).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines (registration number CRD42023399094). We searched databases for studies up to March 2023, including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials in English.

RESULTS

Out of 280 studies, 9 studies (1104 patients) were eligible. A total of 408 patients were allocated to receive metformin, and 696 patients entered the control group. Primary analysis focused on evaluating the CR showed a significant difference in patients with AEH treated with metformin (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.20, p = 0.02). Relapse rate (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.33-1.17, p = 0.14) was also evaluated. Secondary analysis indicated higher pregnancy rates (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.04-1.57, p = 0.02) with no significant difference in live birth rates (RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.29-1.10, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Combined therapy is effective. Metformin shows superiority to the standard regimen in achieving better CR rate in patients with AEH and benefits pregnancy rates but not recurrence or live birth rates. Therefore, the ideal fertility-sparing treatment for EC has not yet been determined and further clinical trials are needed.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device therapy vs oral progestin treatment for reproductive-aged patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine outcomes of patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia treated with oral progestins or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (IUD).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review across 5 databases to examine outcomes of progestational treatment (oral progestins or levonorgestrel-releasing IUD) for patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. The primary outcome was the best complete response rate within 12 months of primary progestational treatment. Sensitivity analyses were performed by removing studies with extreme effect sizes. Secondary outcomes included the pooled pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

We identified 21 eligible studies, including 824 premenopausal patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, for our meta-analysis. Among these, 459 patients received oral progestin, and 365 patients received levonorgestrel-releasing IUD as a primary progestational treatment. The pooled best complete response proportion within 12 months was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69% to 91%) following oral progestin treatment and 95% (95% CI = 81% to 99%) following levonorgestrel-releasing IUD treatment. After removing outlier studies, the pooled proportion was 86% (95% CI = 75% to 92%) for the oral progestin group and 96% (95% CI = 91% to 99%) for the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD group, with reduced heterogeneity. The pooled pregnancy rate was 50% (95% CI = 35% to 65%) after oral progestin and 35% (95% CI = 23% to 49%) after levonorgestrel-releasing IUD treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides data on the effectiveness of oral progestins and levonorgestrel-releasing IUD treatment within 12 months of treatment among premenopausal patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Although based on small numbers, the rate of pregnancy after treatment is modest. These data may be beneficial for selecting progestational therapies that allow fertility preservation for patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia.

Assessing ovarian stimulation with letrozole and levonorgestrel intrauterine system after combined fertility-sparing approach for atypical endometrial lesions: a retrospective case-control study

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is ovarian stimulation with levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in situ and co-treatment with letrozole safe and effective in patients undergoing fertility-sparing combined treatment for atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) or early endometrial cancer limited to the endometrium?

DESIGN

Retrospective case-control study recruiting women who had undergone fertility-sparing 'combined' treatment and ovarian stimulation with letrozole and LNG-IUS in situ. The 'three steps' hysteroscopic technique was used. Once complete response was achieved, the ovaries were stimulated, and mature oocytes cryopreserved. The LNG-IUS was removed, and embryos transferred. A comparative analysis was conducted between the two control groups of the initial outcomes of ART (number of oocytes and MII oocytes retrieved): healthy infertile women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI (control group A); and patients diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent ovarian stimulation with letrozole (control group B).

RESULTS

Of the 75 patients analysed, 15 underwent oocyte cryopreservation after achieving a complete response to fertility-sparing treatment (study group); 30 patients in control group A and B, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed in retrieved oocytes and mature oocytes between the study and control groups. In the nine patients who underwent embryo transfer, clinical pregnancy (55.6%), cumulative live birth (44.4%) and miscarriage (20%) rates were reported. In three patients with AEH, recurrence occurred (12%) at 3, 6 and 16 months after removing the LNG-IUS to attempt embryo transfer, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Fertility-sparing hysteroscopic combined treatment and subsequent ovarian stimulation with letrozole and LNG-IUS in situ could be suggested to women with AEH or early endometrial cancer who ask for future fertility preservation.

Prediction of complete regression in fertility-sparing patients with endometrial cancer and apical hyperplasia: the GLOBAL model in a large Chinese cohort

BACKGROUND

Fertility preservation treatment is increasingly essential for patients with apical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and early endometrial cancer (EEC) worldwide. Complete regression (CR) is the main endpoint of this treatment. Accurately predicting CR and implementing appropriate interventions during treatment are crucial for these patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study involving 193 patients diagnosed with atypical AEH or EEC, enrolled from January 2012 to March 2022 at our center. We evaluated 24 clinical parameters as candidate predictors and employed LASSO regression to develop a prediction model for CR. Subsequently, a nomogram was constructed to predict CR after the treatment. We evaluated the performance of the nomogram using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve and decision curve analysis (DCA) to assess its predictive accuracy. Additionally, we employed cumulative curves to determine the CR rate among patients.

RESULTS

Out of the 193 patients, 173 achieved CR after undergoing fertility preservation treatment. We categorized features with similar properties and provided a list of formulas based on their coefficients. The final model, named GLOBAL (including basic information, characteristics, blood pressure, glucose metabolism, lipid metabolism, immunohistochemistry, histological type, and medication), comprised eight variables identified using LASSO regression. A nomogram incorporating these eight risk factors was developed to predict CR. The GLOBAL model exhibited an AUC of 0.907 (95% CI 0.828-0.969). Calibration plots demonstrated a favorable agreement between the predicted probability by the GLOBAL model and actual observations in the cohort. The cumulative curve analysis revealed varying cumulative CR rates among patients in the eight subgroups. Categorized analysis demonstrated significant diversity in the effects of the GLOBAL model on CR among patients with different total points (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We have developed and validated a model that significantly enhances the predictive accuracy of CR in AEH and EEC patients seeking fertility preservation treatment.

Fertility-sparing surgery: a hopeful strategy for young women with cancer

Fertility preservation in cancer patients is currently based on either assisted reproductive technology or fertility-sparing surgery. Loss of fertility may be caused by excisional surgery associated with an adnexal or uterine pathology or secondary to gonadal insufficiency caused by chemotherapy or radiation. The counseling of these patients is very important, being carried out jointly by the oncologist, gynecologist, and reproductive medicine specialist. Reproductive surgery usually requires avoiding laparotomy to significantly reduce the formation of adhesions and trauma or tissue damage. This is done using standard laparoscopic surgery or robotic surgery (computer-assisted laparoscopy), a method increasingly used and accessible to all specialists who want to maintain the fertility of their patients with various oncological diseases.

Efficacy of Oral Medications or Intrauterine Device-Delivered Progestin in Patients with Endometrial Hyperplasia with or without Atypia: A Network Meta-Analysis

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of oral medication or intrauterine device-delivered progestins in patients with endometrial hyperplasia (EH) with or without atypia. We systematically examined PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify studies reporting the regression rate of patients with EH who received progestins or non-progestins. The regression rates after different treatments were compared using a network meta-analysis in terms of the relative ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Begg-Mazumdar rank correlation and funnel plots were performed to evaluate the publication bias. Five non-randomized studies and 21 randomized controlled trials involving 2268 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) was associated with a higher regression rate than medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.46) in patients with EH. Among those without atypia, the LNG-IUS was associated with a higher regression rate than any of the three types of oral medications (MPA, norethisterone, or dydrogesterone (DGT)) (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.55). According to the network meta-analysis, combining the LNG-IUS with MPA or metformin increased regression rate, while DGT was associated with the highest regression rate among all oral medications. The LNG-IUS may be the best choice for patients with EH, and combining it with MPA or metformin may further improve its efficacy. DGT may be the preferred choice for patients who are unwilling to use the LNG-IUS or who cannot tolerate its side effects.

Systemic Progestins and Progestin-Releasing Intrauterine Device Therapy for Premenopausal Patients With Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia

OBJECTIVE

To estimate trends in use and outcomes of progestin therapy for premenopausal patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia.

METHODS

The MarketScan Database was used to identify patients aged 18-50 years with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia from 2008 to 2020. Primary treatment was classified as hysterectomy or progestin-based therapy. Within the progestin group, treatment was classified as systemic therapy or progestin-releasing intrauterine device (IUD). The trends in use of progestins and the pattern of progestin use were examined. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to examine the association between baseline characteristics and the use of progestins. The cumulative incidence of hysterectomy, uterine cancer, and pregnancy since initiation of progestin therapy was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 3,947 patients were identified. Hysterectomy was performed in 2,149 (54.4%); progestins were used in 1,798 (45.6%). Use of progestins increased from 44.2% in 2008 to 63.4% in 2020 (P=.002). Among the progestin users, 1,530 (85.1%) were treated with systemic progestin, and 268 (14.9%) were treated with progestin-releasing IUD. Among progestin users, use of IUD increased from 7.7% in 2008 to 35.6% in 2020 (P<.001). Hysterectomy was ultimately performed in 36.0% (95% CI 32.8-39.3%) of those who received systemic progestins compared with 22.9% (95% CI 16.5-30.0%) of those treated with progestin-releasing IUD (P<.001). Subsequent uterine cancer was documented in 10.5% (95% CI 7.6-13.8%) of those who received systemic progestins compared with 8.2% (95% CI 3.1-16.6%) of those treated with progestin-releasing IUD (P=.24). Venous thromboembolic complications occurred in 27 (1.5%) of those treated with progestins; the venous thromboembolism (VTE) rate was similar for oral progestins and progestin-releasing IUD.

CONCLUSION

The rate of conservative treatment with progestins in premenopausal individuals with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia has increased over time, and among progestin users, progestin-releasing IUD use is increasing. Progestin-releasing IUD use may be associated with a lower rate of hysterectomy and a similar rate of VTE compared with oral progestin therapy.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system-based therapies for early-stage endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the oncological and fertility outcomes of early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) treated with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LIUS)-based regimens.

METHODS

The Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement for meta-analyses was followed. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Preprints, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1990 to August 4, 2022. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used for quality assessment. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate and the secondary endpoints were relapse, pregnancy, and live birth rate.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies (821 women) were included. The CR rate of LIUS-based regimens was 63.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=52.3%-73.2%), with 29.6% (95% CI=23.3%-36.8%) of cases experiencing recurrence during follow-up. In sensitivity analyses, patients younger than 45 years of age with a body mass index <30 kg/m² who were treated with LIUS-based regimens achieved a high CR rate of 84.6% (95% CI=80.3%-88.1%) over a median follow-up of more than 24 months. Overall pregnancy and live birth rates were 37.9% (95% CI=24.1%-53.9%) and 39.3% (95% CI=24.0%-57.0%), respectively. No statistical differences were apparent in CR or relapse rates among the LIUS+GnRH agonist, LIUS+oral progesterone, or hysteroscopic resection followed by LIUS subgroups.

CONCLUSION

LIUS-based therapies are viable for the conservative management of early-stage endometrioid EC on CR and fertility outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022352890.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma

Background: The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma (EC) consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in EC in a multidisciplinary setting. While also addressing work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility sparing treatment. Objectives: To define recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Materials and Methods: ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of EC (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. Results: The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma in four sections: patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues. Conclusions: These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery, and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario. What is new? A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE, aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Hum Reprod Open 2023;2023:hoac057. [PMID: 36756380 PMCID: PMC9900425 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac057]

STUDY QUESTION

How should fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma be performed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Forty-eight recommendations were formulated on fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgement was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations in four sections; patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of the 48 recommendations, none could be based on level I evidence and only 16 could be based on level II evidence, implicating that 66% of the recommendations are supported only by observational data, professional experience and consensus of the development group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. G.S. has reported grants from MSD Italia S.r.l., advisory boards for Storz, Bayer, Astrazeneca, Metronic, TESARO Bio Italy S.r.l and Johnson & Johnson, and honoraria for lectures from Clovis Oncology Italy S.r.l. M.G. has reported advisory boards for Gedeon Richter and Merck. The other authors have reported no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This document represents the views of ESHRE, ESGO and ESGE which are the result of consensus between the relevant stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma

The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma, consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive information on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment.A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment (patient selection, tumor clinicopathological characteristics, treatment, special issues) in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (11 experts from across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified by a systematic search, was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma

Background

The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma (EC) consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in EC in a multidisciplinary setting. While also addressing work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility sparing treatment.

Objectives

To define recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of EC (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

Results

The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma in four sections: patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues.

Conclusions

These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery, and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario. What is new? A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE, aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

Clinical outcomes of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device present during controlled ovarian stimulation in patients with early stage endometrioid adenocarcinoma and atypical endometrial hyperplasia after fertility-sparing treatments: 10-year experience in one tertiary hospital in China

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the oncologic and pregnancy outcomes of patients with early stage endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EMC) and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) treated with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with or without levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) after fertility-sparing treatment (FSTs).

METHODS

A total of 67 patients with EMC or AEH who achieved complete response after FSTs and underwent COS between January 2010 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the risk factors for recurrence after COS.

RESULTS

The average age was 32.9 ± 3.46 years. 23.9 % of these patients relapsed after COS during the follow-up period. The 2-year cumulative recurrence rate was 14.9 % (9.1 % and 20.6 % in the LNG-IUD and control groups, respectively). Compared with the control group, the recurrence rate was lower in patients with LNG-IUDs present during COS (12.1 % vs 35.5 %, p = 0.027). The clinical pregnancy (42.4 % vs 52.9 %, p = 0.392) and live birth (21.2 % vs 29.4 %, p = 0.444) rates were similar between the LNG-IUD and control groups. Age, body mass index (BMI), histology, FST type and time to complete response were not related to prognosis after COS. After adjusting for age and BMI in a multivariate Cox regression model, the use of LNG-IUD during COS was a favorable factor for better oncologic outcomes after COS (HR 0.263, 95 %CI 0.084-0.822, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with early stage EMC and AEH treated with assisted reproductive technology after FSTs might benefit from LNG-IUDs present during COS.

Oncological and reproductive outcomes for gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist combined with aromatase inhibitors or levonorgestrel-releasing intra-uterine system in women with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) combined with a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) or aromatase inhibitor (letrozole) in women with endometrial carcinoma or atypical endometrial hyperplasia who wished to preserve fertility.

METHODS

Patients at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital between January 2013 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 179 patients who were unsuitable to undergo treatment with high-dose oral progestin, including those with progestin allergies, body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, liver and/or renal dysfunction, hypercoagulable state, and thrombosis were included. Patient data were retrieved from medical records and a prospectively maintained database that represented the standard protocol was followed for all patients. Clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, adverse events, and reproductive outcomes were collected and analyzed. Logistic regression models were constructed to determine the associations between complete remission, recurrence, and fertility.

RESULTS

Overall, 169 patients (94.4%) achieved complete remission; 58 (96.7%) had atypical endometrial hyperplasia and 111 (93.3%) had endometrial carcinoma. The complete remission rates for the GnRHa plus LNG-IUD and GnRHa plus letrozole groups were 93.5% and 95.8%, respectively. The median time to complete remission was 6 (range 3-18) months: 4 (range 3-10) months for atypical endometrial hyperplasia and 8 (range 3-18) months for endometrial carcinoma. After a median follow-up of 27.5 (range 3-92) months, 41 (24.3%) women developed recurrence, with a median recurrence time of 17 (range 6-77) months. Of the patients with complete remission, 134 patients desired to conceive and 42 (32.3%) became pregnant, 24 (17.9%) were successfully delivered, 5 (3.7%) were still pregnant, while 13 miscarried.

CONCLUSION

GnRHa combined treatment provides favorable oncological and reproductive outcomes. Larger multi-institutional studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

Conservative Management of Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia and Early Endometrial Cancer in Childbearing Age Women

Total hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy is the standard treatment for atypical endometrial hyperplasia and early-stage endometrial cancer. However, the recommended surgical treatment precludes future pregnancy when these conditions are diagnosed in women in their fertile age. In these patients, fertility-sparing treatment may be feasible if the desire for childbearing is consistent and specific conditions are present. This review summarizes the available evidence on fertility-sparing management for atypical endometrial hyperplasia and early-stage endometrial cancer. Historically, oral progestins have been the mainstay of conservative management for atypical endometrial hyperplasia and stage IA endometrioid endometrial cancer with no myometrial invasion, although there is no consensus on dosage and treatment length. Intrauterine progestin therapy has proved a valid alternative option when oral progestins are not tolerated. GnRH analogs, metformin, and hysteroscopic resection in combination with progestins appear to increase the overall efficacy of the treatment. After a complete response, conception is recommended; alternatively, maintenance therapy with strict follow-up has been proposed to decrease recurrence. The risk of disease progression is not negligible, and clinicians should not overlook the risk of hereditary forms of the disease in young patients, in particular, Lynch syndrome. Hysterectomy is performed once the desire for childbearing desire has been established. The conservative management of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and early-stage endometrial cancer is feasible, provided a strong desire for childbearing and permitting clinical-pathological conditions. However, patients must be aware of the need for a strict follow-up and the risk of progression with a possible consequent worsening of the prognosis. More homogenous and well-designed studies are necessary to standardize and identify the best treatment and follow-up protocols.

Safety and efficacy of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and early endometrial cancer

AIM

To investigate the recurrence rate, live-birth rate, and treatment outcomes of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for the management of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) or Grade-1 endometrial cancer (EC) in patients who desire fertility-sparing treatment and those seeking conservative treatment without fertility preservation.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled nine patients from a single institution between April 2009 and September 2013 who were followed up for 60 months after LNG-IUD insertion.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 35 (range: 29-39) years. The overall recurrence rate was 56% (5/9). The median interval between removal of the LNG-IUD and recurrence was 20.5 (range: 2-30) months. Three of the nine patients had Grade-1 EC, and six had AEH. The response rates to the LNG-IUD in patients with Grade-1 EC and AEH were 66% and 100%, respectively. Four patients (three with AEH, one with Grade-1 EC) experienced recurrence 6 months after MPA treatment and all 4 (100%) had complete response. Eight patients desired fertility preservation, of which 37% (3/8) conceived after receiving fertility treatment and 25% (2/8) had a live birth; the remaining three had previously received MPA for 6 months and had a recurrence; of these, 1 had a live birth.

CONCLUSION

LNG-IUD is effective for the management of AEH and EC in young patients who desire fertility-sparing treatment, including those ineligible for MPA owing to the presence of comorbidities and those with recurrence after MPA treatment (6-month treatment), and patients seeking conservative treatment without fertility preservation.

The optimal time for the initiation of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer among women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma receiving fertility-sparing treatment

OBJECTIVE

To explore the optimal time for initiating in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in women with complete remission after fertility-sparing treatment for grade I endometrial cancer (EC) or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Young women who demonstrated complete remission after fertility-sparing treatment for grade I EC or AEH and underwent IVF-ET treatment were included. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to compare the outcomes of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and embryo transfer at different times after discontinuing high-dose progesterone therapy, and patients were divided into three groups: ≤ 3 months (time 1), 3-9 months (time 2) and > 9 months (time 3).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven women with complete remission after fertility-sparing treatment for grade I EC or AEH underwent 75 IVF-ET cycles. Regarding initiation of COH, 10 cycles for time 1, 31 cycles for time 2 and 34 cycles for time 3 were included. The odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the number of available embryos at time 2 and time 3 were 1.82 (1.08-3.08) and 2.45 (1.39-4.33), and those for the number of high-quality embryos at time 2 and time 3 were, respectively, 3.64 (1.34-9.87) and 3.62 (1.10-11.91), compared with that at time 1. Nineteen (51.4%) women had at least one clinical pregnancy and 13 (35.1%) women had live births. During a median follow-up period of 51 months (range 5-168 months), 10 (27.0%) women had disease relapse, with a median interval of 15.5 months (range 5-104 months).

CONCLUSION

Initiating IVF-ET 3 months after ceasing high-dose progesterone therapy can lead to better outcomes of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for women with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia.

Fertility-Sparing Treatment for Endometrial Cancer or Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia Patients With Obesity

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and prognosis of fertility-sparing treatment on endometrial cancer (EC) and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2.

Methods

A total of 102 EC or AEH patients with obesity who received fertility-preserving therapy in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital were included in our study. All patients were followed up regularly. Clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, adverse events, and reproductive outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 88 (86.3%) patients achieved complete response (CR), 92.5% in AEH and 82.3% in EC, with 6 months (3–12 months) median CR time. High remission rates were found in patients who received gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa)-based regimen, were younger than 35 years old, and lost more than 10% of their weight. Fifteen (17.0%) women had developed recurrence with a median recurrence time of 26 (8–52) months. Patients who received GnRHa regimen, lost more than 10% weight, received maintenance therapy, or conceived during the follow-up period had a low probability of recurrence. Of the patients with CR, 57 women attempted to get pregnant and 16 (28.1%) patients became pregnant, 7 (12.3%) of them successfully delivered and 4 (7.0%) were in pregnancy, while 5 (8.8%) of them miscarried.

Conclusion

For obese patients with EC and AEH, fertility-preserving treatment can still achieve a promising response. Weight loss of more than 10% has a positive influence on response, recurrence, as well as pregnancy rates. GnRHa could be an option for obese women due to less effect on weight gain compared to progestin therapy.

Contemporary Fertility-Sparing Management Options of Early Stage Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer in Young Nulliparous Patients

Incidence of endometrial cancer (EC) has been increasing in recent years, especially in high-income countries. The disease commonly affects peri- and postmenopausal women; however, about 5% of women are diagnosed with EC in their reproductive age. Due to both the increasing incidence of EC among reproductive age women and trends to delayed childbearing, fertility-sparing treatment for young patients with EC has become extremely important for researchers and practitioners. Because the classic treatment with total hysterectomy and bilateral saplingo-oophorectomy is not an appropriate approach for young women demanding fertility preservation, several fertility-sparing options have been developed and summarized in this review. Utilization of different medications and their combination (progestagens, gonadotropin releasing hormones analogues, and metformin in different formulations) are tested and found as efficient for fertility-sparing treatment. New minimally invasive surgical techniques, combined with progestagens, are also confirmed as valuable. There are many novel conservative and surgical treatment approaches under investigation. Assuming that molecular biomarkers can be both diagnostic and prognostic to assist in prediction of response to a certain therapy, prognostic risk groups' stratification along with specific biomarkers' identification will ensure low recurrence and decrease mortality rates in young women with EC.

Management of Recurrent Endometrial Cancer or Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia Patients After Primary Fertility-Sparing Therapy

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and prognosis of fertility-sparing re-treatment on patients with recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) who wish to preserve their uterus after complete remission (CR) for primary conservative therapy.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study on recurrent EC or AEH patients who received fertility-sparing re-treatment after achieving CR. Data regarding clinicopathological factors, adverse events, treatment efficacy, tumor prognosis, and reproductive outcome were analyzed.

Results

Of the 98 recurrent patients with a median disease-free interval period of 19 (3–96) months, 18 patients decided to receive hysterectomy directly, and 80 patients received fertility-preserving re-treatment. Seventy-one (88.6%) cases achieved CR, 96.0% in AEH and 75.8% in EC patients, with the 6 (3–16) months’ median CR time. Seven (8.8%) patients failed to achieve CR and then underwent the hysterectomy: one partial response (PR), four stable disease (SD), and two progressive disease (PD). Forty-nine women attempted to get pregnant after CR, 13 (26.5%) became pregnant, seven (14.3%) successfully delivered, and six (12.2%) miscarried. During the follow-up period, 22 (31.0%) women had developed a second relapse with the median recurrence time of 12 (4–90) months, and 10 patients decided to receive the third round of fertility-sparing treatment. Seven (70.0%) patients, 33.3% in EC and 85.7% in AEH, achieved CR again. Hysterectomy was performed in two (20.0%) patients due to SD. After the third-round treatment, six women had the desire to conceive but no one became pregnant successfully.

Conclusion

For patients with recurrent EC and AEH after primary conservative treatment, fertility-preserving re-treatment can still achieve a promising response, and patients have possibilities of completing childbirth.