Gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist and levonorgestrel-intrauterine device followed by in vitro fertilization program as management strategy for an infertile endometrial cancer patient: a case report

Perceived social support and quality of life in endometrial cancer patients: a longitudinal study

Objective

This study aimed to assess the influence of medical history, perceived physician-patient communication, and perceived social support on changes in the quality of life (QoL) during the first year of follow-up in patients undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer (EC), the most prevalent gynecological cancer in Western countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe and North America.

Methods

This prospective longitudinal study included 98 EC patients. All participants completed the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) one month and one year after surgery. Additionally, one month after surgery, they responded to a questionnaire designed by the researchers concerning the key aspects of physician-patient communication.

Results

Our findings revealed that patients reporting high social support one month after surgery demonstrated significantly improved emotional well-being (EWB) at both one month and one year after the surgery, with statistically significant higher scores in the dimension of EWB (p<0.05). The support from a significant other at one year correlates with greater PF (p<0.005), fewer limitations due to physical health (p<0.05), less pain (p<0.05), less fatigue (p<0.05), and better general and EWB (p<0.05).

Conclusion

This study underscores the significance of perceived social support for patients cross endometrial cancer. The multifaceted nature of social support, encompassing emotional assistance and information sharing, emerges as a pivotal factor aiding patients in confronting the challenges inherent to EC. This form of support contributes to bolstering psychological well-being and enhancing overall QoL.

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.

Updates on conservative management of endometrial cancer in patients younger than 45 years

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in developed country. Women under the age of 40 represent 5% of all endometrial cancer and the majority are nulliparous at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this review was to compare oncologic and fertility outcomes among different fertility-preserving therapies in patients under 45 years of age with grade 1 or 2 endometrial cancer. A systematic review was conducted, the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were searched for articles published during the period from January 2010 through January 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, using the terms endometrial cancer, fertility sparing treatment and conservative treatment. A total of 661 patients in 38 studies were included. The median age was 32.3 years (range 13--43). Regardless of the primary treatment, it is always accompanied by systemic or local hormonal treatment. The median follow-up time was 47.92 months (range 1-412), 54.9 months (range 3.4-412) for the progesterone group, 38.97 months (range 3-172) for the hysteroscopic resection group and 23.11 months (range 1-115.5) for the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device group. The overall complete response rate was 79.4%, [Hysteroscopic Resection: 90%, hormonal treatment: 77.7%, and Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device: 71.3%] The p = 0.02 when the primary treatment is Hysteroscopic resection, always followed by hormonal therapy either oral progesterone or Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device. Patients who had tumor resection had lower progression than those who received hormonal treatment or Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device 3.5% vs. 12.1% vs. 19.5% respectively (p = 0.03). The complete response time was higher in the Hysteroscopic Resection group (p = 0.04) with fewer patients undergoing hysterectomy (p = 0.0001). Patients who underwent Hysteroscopic Resection had higher pregnancy rates compared to medical treatment or Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device, 34.5%, 27.6% and 18.4%, respectively (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent Hysteroscopic Resection followed progestogens agent was associated to a better complete response, high pregnancy rates and minor numbers of hysterectomies.

A successful live birth with in vitro fertilization and thawed embryo transfer after conservative treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer

Estrogen-dependent early stage endometrial cancer is relatively common in young women of reproductive age. The standard treatment is hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), even in early stage well-differentiated endometrial cancer patients. This surgical option results in permanent loss of fertility. There have been some reports of live births using in vitro fertilization after conservative management of endometrial cancer with high-dose progestin for the purpose of fertility preservation. However, most were not recurrent cases and pregnancy was achieved through conventional in vitro fertilization, which usually raises serum estradiol levels and may lead to the recurrence of endometrial cancer. To date, it is hard to find a case that can be referred for any possible different approach needed for the patients who experience recurrence. Here we report a successful live birth with in vitro fertilization using letrozole to maintain physiological levels of estradiol, and subsequent thawed embryo transfer after elective cryopreservation of embryos in a patient with recurrent endometrial cancer. There has been no evidence of disease recurrence at one year after delivery.

Conservative therapy with metformin plus megestrol acetate for endometrial atypical hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of metformin plus megestrol acetate (MA) with that of MA alone for treating endometrial atypical hyperplasia (EAH).

METHODS

This pilot study included 16 EAH patients who met at least one metabolic syndrome (MS) criterion and received either adjunctive metformin plus MA (MET group) or MA monotherapy (MA group). Each patient in the MA group received 160 mg of MA daily, whereas patients in the MET group received the same dose of MA plus 0.5 g of metformin thrice daily. Treatment response was assessed by histological examination of dilation and curettage specimens obtained after 12 weeks of therapy.

RESULTS

Each group had eight patients, and half of the patients in each group were diagnosed with MS. The complete response (CR) rate was 75% (6/8) in the MET group and 25% (2/8) in the MA group (p=0.105). Complications of MS did not affect the response rates in either group. In the MET group, 75% (3/4) of the patients had CR in the presence or absence of MS. In the MA group, 50% (2/4) of the patients with MS had CR, whereas no patient without MS had CR. No irreversible toxicities were observed.

CONCLUSION

Metformin plus MA may be a potential alternative therapy for treating EAH, and the MS status of patients may have no effect on the efficacy of metformin plus MA therapy.