Weight control is vital for patients with early-stage endometrial cancer or complex atypical hyperplasia who have received progestin therapy to spare fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Causal relationship between affect disorders and endometrial cancer: a Mendelian randomisation study

BACKGROUND

The aim was to assess the causal relationship between depression and anxiety disorders and endometrial cancer.

METHOD

We performed two-sample Mendelian randomisation analysis using summary statistics from genome-wide association studies to assess associations of major depressive disorder, anxiety and stress-related disorders with endometrial cancer. The genome-wide association studies(GWASs) data were derived from participants of predominantly European ancestry included in the Genome-wide Association Research Collaboration. Inverse variance-weighted, MR-Egger and weighted median MR analyses were performed, together with a range of sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Mendelian randomisation analysis showed no statistically significant genetic responsibility effect of anxiety and stress-related disorders on any pathological type of endometrial cancer. Only the effect of major depressive disorder under the inverse variance weighting method increasing the risk of endometrial endometrial cancer (effect 0.004 p = 0.047) and the effect of major depressive disorder under the MR-Egger method decreasing endometrial cancer of all pathology types (effect -0.691 p = 0.015) were statistically significant. Other Mendelian randomisation analyses did not show a statistically significant effect.

CONCLUSION

Major depressive disorder(MDD), anxiety and stress-related disorders(ASRD) are not genetically responsible for endometrial cancer. We consider that emotional disorders may affect endometrial cancer indirectly by affecting body mass index. This study provides us with new insights to better understand the aetiology of endometrial cancer and inform prevention strategies.

Weight-Loss and Metformin-Use Improve the Reversal Rate in Patients with Endometrial Hyperplasia

Objective

To evaluate the therapeutic outcomes of weight loss and metformin use in patients with endometrial hyperplasia (EH), and to identify the factors influencing treatment efficacy.

Methods

This study included data from patients diagnosed with either EH or endometrial atypical hyperplasia (EAH). Patients selected a progestin treatment regimen based on their diagnosis. Those with concurrent obesity or insulin resistance received additional weight management support and metformin therapy. Follow-up assessments were conducted every 3-6 months.

Results

A total of 202 patients were included. The metformin group exhibited significantly greater improvement in abnormal uterine bleeding (91.5% vs 57.1%, p < 0.001) and in ultrasound findings (91.5% vs 66.7%, p < 0.001) than the non-metformin group. Patients who achieved >3% weight loss and those using metformin showed a significantly higher rate of disease reversal than those with ≤3% weight loss (91.2% vs 77.6%, p = 0.034) and the non-metformin group (93.2% vs 52.4%, p < 0.001). At follow-up durations exceeding 12 months, metformin use was associated with a significantly higher disease reversal rate (82.1% vs 42.9%, p = 0.048) and a lower recurrence rate (12.8% vs 28.6%, p = 0.048). Weight loss of >3% (odds ratio: 0.041, 95% confidence interval: 0.004-0.437, p = 0.008) and metformin use (odds ratio: 0.059, 95% confidence interval: 0.011-0.311, p = 0.001) were both independently associated with improved reversal rates in patients with EH/EAH.

Conclusion

Combining progestin therapy with weight loss and metformin is more effective in reversing EH than progestin alone. Regular metformin use, alongside weight loss, serves as a protective factor in EH management, with the protective effect of metformin increasing with longer use.

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.

DEAR model in overweight endometrial cancer patients undergoing fertility-sparing treatment: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of DEAR weight management in overweight patients undergoing fertility-sparing treatment for endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia.

METHODS

Women with endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia who received fertility-sparing treatment and had a body mass index of >25 kg/m2 were randomly allocated to the DEAR (DEAR weight management) and control (self weight management) groups. Body morphology and composition, glycolipid metabolism, and tumor outcomes were assessed in both groups before and at 3 and 6 months after intervention.

RESULTS

Overall, 72 subjects were included (36 in each group). Following intervention, the DEAR group showed significantly lower median body weight (69.45 vs. 78.05), body mass index (26.19 vs. 29.15), lipid accumulation index (29.21 vs. 57.86), body fat mass (24.00 vs. 29.30), visceral fat area (112.5 vs. 133.3), and glycolipid metabolic indices (except high density lipoprotein) than the control group (P < 0.05) and showed a decreasing trend. The test group achieved significantly higher complete remission (88.46% vs. 57.14%; P < 0.05); the time to complete remission did not differ significantly (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

DEAR weight management can improve the studied parameters and complete remission rates in this population.

REGISTRATION

NCT06169449.

Urine metabolomics for assessing fertility-sparing treatment efficacy in endometrial cancer: a non-invasive approach using ultra-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to reveal the urine metabolic change of endometrial cancer (EC) patients during fertility-sparing treatment and establish non-invasive predictive models to identify patients with complete remission (CR).

METHOD

This study enrolled 20 EC patients prior to treatment (PT) and 22 patients with CR, aged 25-40 years. Eligibility criteria consisted of stage IA high-grade EC, lesions confined to endometrium, normal hepatic and renal function, normal urine test, no contraindication for fertility-sparing treatment and no prior therapy. Urine samples were analyzed using ultraperformance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS), a technique chosen for its high sensitivity and resolution, allows for rapid, accurate identification and quantification of metabolites, providing a comprehensive metabolic profile and facilitating the discovery of potential biomarkers. Analytical techniques were employed to determine distinct metabolites and altered metabolic pathways. The statistical analyses were performed using univariate and multivariate analyses, logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to discover and validate the potential biomarker models.

RESULTS

A total of 108 different urine metabolomes were identified between CR and PT groups. These metabolites were enriched in ascorbate and aldarate metabolism, one carbon pool by folate, and some amino acid metabolisms pathways. A panel consisting of Baicalin, 5beta-1,3,7 (11)-Eudesmatrien-8-one, Indolylacryloylglycine, Edulitine, and Physapubenolide were selected as biomarkers, which demonstrated the best predictive ability with the AUC values of 0.982/0.851 in training/10-fold-cross-validation group, achieving a sensitivity of 0.975 and specificity of 0.967, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The urine metabolic analysis revealed the metabolic changes in EC patients during the fertility-sparing treatment. The predictive biomarkers present great potential diagnostic value in fertility-sparing treatments for EC patients, offering a less invasive means of monitoring treatment efficacy. Further research should explore the mechanistic underpinnings of these metabolic changes and validate the biomarker panel in larger, diverse populations due to the small sample size and single-institution nature of our study.

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.

Trends and characteristics of fertility-sparing treatment for atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer in Japan: a survey by the Gynecologic Oncology Committee of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the current trends in fertility-sparing (FS) treatment for young atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and endometrial cancer (EC) patients in Japan.

METHODS

This study was conducted by the Committee on Gynecologic Oncology of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) in the 2017-2018 fiscal year. A nationwide, retrospective questionnaire-style survey-as performed. We collected the data of 413 patients from 102 JSOG gynecological cancer registered institutions.

RESULTS

FS treatment was performed with medroxyprogesterone (MPA) (87.2%) or MPA + metformin (11.6%). Pathological complete remission (CR) after initial treatment was achieved in 78.2% of patients. The significant clinicopathological factors correlated to CR after initial treatment were histology (AEH vs. endometrioid carcinoma grade 1 [ECG1]), body mass index (BMI) (<25 vs. ≥25 kg/m²), and treatment period (<6 vs) ≥6 months). ECG1, time to complete remission (TTCR) ≥6 months, maintenance therapy (-), and pregnancy (-) were associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrence on multivariate analysis. The total pregnancy rate was 47%, and the live birth rate was 24%. Patients who received infertility treatments showed a higher live birth rate (50.6%) than those who did not (7)7%).

CONCLUSION

In this survey, we confirmed that FS treatment in Japan is centered on MPA alone and in combination with metformin, and that the treatment efficacy is similar to that reported in previous reports. A multicenter survey study in Japan showed FS treatment for young AEH and EC patients in compliance with the indications is feasible.

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.

Metabolic syndrome is an independent risk factor for time to complete remission of fertility-sparing treatment in atypical endometrial hyperplasia and early endometrial carcinoma patients

OBJECTIVE

Fertility-sparing treatment of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and early endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients has recently emerged important social health topic. This study is designed to explore the risk factors for time to complete remission (CR) of fertility-sparing treatment in woman with AEH and early EC.

METHODS

A retrospective study was designed with clinical data from 106 patients admitted between January 2012 to December 2019. Univariate and multivariate logistic analysis were used to explore independent risk factors for time to CR. These factors were employed in receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve and the decision curve analysis (DCA) to evaluate predictive accuracy of time to CR. Stratified analysis and interactive analysis was also performed for more in-depth perspective.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis showed that fasting blood glucose levels (FBG, OR = 1.6, 95%CI: 0.6-2.5, P = 0.020), metabolic syndrome (MetS, OR = 3.0, 95%CI: 1.1-5.0, P = 0.003), and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS, OR = 2.0, 95%CI: 0.5-3.4, P = 0.009) were associated with time to CR. Among these factors, multivariate analysis confirmed MetS (OR = 3.1, 95%CI: 1.0-5.2, P = 0.005) was an independent risk factor. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of MetS was higher than FBG and PCOS (AUC = 0.723 vs 0.612 and 0.692). The AUC of FBG combined with PCOS was 0.779, and it was improved to 0.840 when MetS was included (P < 0.05). Additionally, MetS played different roles in time to CR in various groups. Moreover, we found high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and MetS had an interactive effect for time to CR.

CONCLUSION

MetS is an independent risk factor for time to CR and should be taken seriously in fertility-sparing management of AEH and early EC patients.

Should Endometrial Cancer Treatment Be Centralized?

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract in Western and emerging countries. In 2012, new cancer cases numbered 319,605, and 76,160 cancer deaths were diagnosed worldwide. ECs are usually diagnosed after menopause; 70% of ECs are diagnosed at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and a 5-year overall survival rate of 77%. On the contrary, women with advanced or recurrent disease have extremely poor outcomes because they show a low response rate to conventional chemotherapy. EC is generally considered easy to treat, although it presents a 5-year mortality of 25%. Though the guidelines (GLs) recommend treatment in specialized centers by physicians specializing in gynecologic oncology, most women are managed by general gynecologists, resulting in differences and discrepancies in clinical management. In this paper we reviewed the literature with the aim of highlighting where the treatment of EC patients requires gynecologic oncologists, as suggested by the GLs. Moreover, we sought to identify the causes of the lack of GL adherence, suggesting useful changes to ensure adequate treatment for all EC patients.

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.

Effect and Management of Excess Weight in the Context of Fertility-Sparing Treatments in Patients With Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia and Endometrial Cancer: Eight-Year Experience of 227 Cases

Objective

To investigate the oncologic and reproductive outcomes of fertility-sparing treatments (FSTs) in atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and endometrial cancer (EC) patients with excess weight (EW).

Methods

This retrospective study comprised patients with AEH or EC who achieved a complete response (CR) after FST from 2010 to 2018. The clinical characteristics, oncological and reproductive outcomes were compared between the excess weight (EW) group (body mass index (BMI)≥25 kg/m²) and normal weight (NW) group (BMI<25 kg/m²). The risk factors associated with recurrence and unsuccessful pregnancy in patients with EW were analyzed.

Results

Overall, 227 patients were enrolled, including 139 (61.2%) in EW group and 88 (38.8%) in NW group. In patients with EW, the pregnancy rate, the live birth rate and the relapse rate were 29.8%, 23.4%, and 30.9%, respectively. In patients with NW, these rates were 61.1%, 47.2%, and 31.8%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the time to remission (P=0.865) and disease-free survival (DFS) (P=0.750). Patients in NW group achieved a better pregnancy rate than patients in the EW group (P=0.034). The patients with EW using ovulation induction to increase fertility tended to have a shorter time to pregnancy (P=0.042). However, no significant risk factors associated with unsuccessful pregnancy were identified after the multivariate analysis. In terms of DFS, the combination of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) and LNG-IUD was better for patients with EW than GnRH-a or oral progestin therapy alone (P=0.044, adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=0.432, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.152-1.229), especially for patients with EW diagnosed with EC (P=0.032).

Conclusion

FSTs for overweight and obese patients should be more individualized. GnRH-a and/or LNG-IUD may be options prior to FSTs in patients with EW. Further prospective studies are needed.

Weight Loss During Intrauterine Progestin Treatment for Obesity-associated Atypical Hyperplasia and Early-Stage Cancer of The Endometrium

Intrauterine progestin is a treatment option for women with atypical hyperplasia or low-risk endometrial cancer who wish to preserve their fertility, or whose poor surgical fitness precludes safe hysterectomy. We hypothesized that in such women with obesity, weight loss during progestin treatment may improve oncological outcomes. We conducted a prospective nonrandomized study of women with obesity and atypical hyperplasia or low-grade stage 1a endometrial cancer undergoing progestin treatment. Women with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35 kg/m2 were offered bariatric surgery; those who declined and those with a BMI of 30 to 34.9 kg/m2 were encouraged to lose weight by low-calorie diet. We assessed uptake of bariatric surgery; weight lost during progestin treatment; and the impact of more than 10% total body weight loss on progestin treatment response at 12 months. 71 women [median age 58 years (interquartile range; IQR 35-65); mean BMI 48 kg/m2 (SD 9.3)] completed the study. Twenty-three women (32%) had bariatric surgery, on average 5 months (IQR 3-8) after progestin treatment commenced. Weight change during progestin treatment was -33.4 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) -42.1, -24.7] and -4.6 kg (95% CI -7.8, -1.4) in women receiving bariatric surgery and low-calorie diet, respectively (P < 0.001). Forty-three women (61%) responded to progestin, while 23 (32%) showed stabilized and 5 (7%) progressive disease. Response at 12 months was not predicted by age or baseline BMI, but women who lost more than 10% of their total body weight were more likely to respond to progestin than those who did not (adjusted odds ratio 3.95; 95% CI 1.3, 12.5; P = 0.02). Thus weight loss may improve oncological outcomes in women with obesity-associated endometrial neoplastic abnormalities treated with progestin. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study found that weight loss improves response rates in women with obesity and atypical hyperplasia or low-risk endometrial cancer undergoing conservative management with intrauterine progestin. Given the additional benefits of weight loss for fertility, cardiovascular health and quality of life, future research should focus on how best to accomplish it.

Weight Loss Improves Pregnancy and Livebirth Outcomes in Young Women with Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer and Atypical Hyperplasia

Purpose

To evaluate the effects of body weight loss on reproductive outcomes in young women with early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) and atypical hyperplasia (AH) who underwent fertility-sparing therapy.

Patients and Methods

Patients with well-differentiated EC (n=8, FIGO stage Ia) and AH (n=36) who achieved complete regression after fertility-sparing therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into a weight loss group (n=25) and a non-weight loss group (n=19). Subgroup analysis according to body mass index and relative weight loss were performed to investigate the effect of weight loss on pregnancy and live birth outcomes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were undertaken to determine pregnancy-associated factors.

Results

Mean body weight and body mass index at pre-progestin treatment and at fertility treatment initiation were 70.63±12.03 and 67.08±8.18 kg, respectively, 27.06±4.44 and 25.73±3.15 kg/m², respectively. Twenty-five patients (56.82%) lost weight, the median absolute weight loss was 5.00 kg (1.00–34.50), and the median relative weight loss was 6.70% (1.00–36.00%) over a median of 12 months (5.00–97.00). A favorable pregnancy rate (65.91%) and live birth rate (50.00%) were achieved. The pregnancy and live birth rates were meaningfully higher in the weight loss group than in the non-weight loss group (88.00% vs 36.84%, P=0.000; 64.00% vs 31.58%, P=0.033); weight loss ≥5% significantly increased pregnancy and live birth rate in patients with BMI ≥25 kg/m². The risk ratio of weight loss ≥5% in multivariate logistic analysis for pregnancy was 10.448 (1.102, 99.056, P=0.041).

Conclusion

Weight loss could positively affect pregnancy rate and improve live birth rate in overweight and obese women with early-stage EC and AH during/after fertility-sparing therapy. Weight loss ≥5% increased pregnancy and livebirth rates significantly in overweight and obese women.

Endometrial cancer in the morbidly obese: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With a worldwide increase in obesity, there has been an increase in obesity-related diseases. Endometrial cancer is a common cause of cancer for women worldwide. Incidence of endometrial cancer has risen worldwide. Accompanying these patients are risk factors and challenges that may prevent standard of care from being delivered.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current article describes recent literature describing surgical approaches to the obese patient and special considerations in this population. This article also reviews bariatric surgery and endometrial cancer as well as new updates in radiation, chemotherapy and hormonal therapy research in the obese population.

SUMMARY

The current article reviews therapeutics and surgery in the morbidly obese for the treatment of endometrial cancer.

Fertility preserving treatment for gynecologic malignancies: a review of recent literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A significant number of women diagnosed with a gynecologic malignancy meet criteria for fertility-sparing treatment. Women are continuing to delay childbearing; the importance of fertility-sparing therapy is, therefore, increasing. It is imperative that physicians understand the options for, and limitations of, these treatments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research has demonstrated improved outcomes for endometrial cancer by adding targeted hysteroscopic resection to progestin therapy. Cervical cancer research has focused on oncologic and pregnancy outcomes following management with radical trachelectomy, confirming its safety. Given the high rates of preterm birth following trachelectomy, studies have evaluated the adequacy of fertility counseling prior to treatment, and have looked for predictive factors for preterm birth. Additionally, research has shown a rise in the percentage of women receiving conservative treatment for both endometrial and cervical cancer.

SUMMARY

With an increasing number of women seeking conservative treatment, physicians must understand the safety and implications of such therapy. Retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety of fertility-sparing treatment for both endometrial and cervical cancer; prospective research is currently underway to provide better guidance for future directions of fertility-sparing treatment for gynecologic malignancies.

Fertility preservation in women with early-stage gynecologic cancer: optimizing oncologic and reproductive outcomes

Almost all standard therapies for gynecologic cancer, including surgical intervention, gonadotoxic chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, threaten a woman's childbearing potential. Preservation of fertility should be discussed with premenopausal women with early-stage gynecologic cancer shortly after diagnosis and, for women who desire to preserve fertility, during treatment planning. Many authors have investigated both oncologic and reproductive outcomes following fertility-sparing therapy, and there is ongoing development of assisted reproduction techniques available to cancer patients and survivors. Women with early-stage (IA1-IB1) cervical cancer may be candidates for fertility-sparing cervical conization, simple trachelectomy, or radical trachelectomy. In women with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer, fertility-sparing surgery appears safe overall, although controversy remains in patients with high-risk features (eg, high pathologic grade, clear cell histology, or stage IC disease). In women with low-grade, early-stage endometrial cancer, hormonal therapy has emerged as a viable option. Criteria for patient selection for fertility-sparing therapy are not well defined, thus patients and providers must carefully discuss potential risks and benefits. In general, in carefully selected patients, survival outcomes do not appear to differ significantly between radical and fertility-sparing approaches. Women who undergo fertility-sparing therapies may experience a number of fertility and obstetric complications. Preconception counseling with high-risk obstetric specialists is important to optimize health before a woman attempts to conceive. Identifying appropriate candidates for fertility-sparing treatments, assessing fertility potential, and helping women conceive after cancer treatment is best accomplished through multidisciplinary collaboration between gynecologic oncologists and fertility specialists.