OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for treatment of complex atypical hyperplasia or low-grade endometrial cancer. METHODS: This retrospective case series included all patients treated with the LNG-IUD for complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer from January 2003 to June 2013. Response rates were calculated and the association of response with clinicopathologic factors, including age, body mass index, and uterine size, was determined. RESULTS: Forty-six patients diagnosed with complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer were treated with the LNG-IUD. Of 32 evaluable patients at the 6-month time point, 15 had complex atypical hyperplasia (47%), nine had G1 endometrial cancer (28%), and eight had grade 2 endometrial cancer (25%). Overall response rate was 75% (95% CI 57-89) at 6 months; 80% (95% CI 52-96) in complex atypical hyperplasia, 67% (95% CI 30-93) in grade 1 endometrial cancer, and 75% (CI 35-97) in grade 2 endometrial cancer. Of the clinicopathologic features evaluated, there was a trend toward the association of lack of exogenous progesterone effect in the pathology specimen with nonresponse to the IUD (P=.05). Median uterine diameter was 1.3 cm larger in women who did not respond to the IUD (P=.04). CONCLUSION: Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD therapy for the conservative treatment of complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer resulted in return to normal histology in a majority of patients.
OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for treatment of complex atypical hyperplasia or low-grade endometrial cancer. METHODS: This retrospective case series included all patients treated with the LNG-IUD for complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer from January 2003 to June 2013. Response rates were calculated and the association of response with clinicopathologic factors, including age, body mass index, and uterine size, was determined. RESULTS: Forty-six patients diagnosed with complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer were treated with the LNG-IUD. Of 32 evaluable patients at the 6-month time point, 15 had complex atypical hyperplasia (47%), nine had G1 endometrial cancer (28%), and eight had grade 2 endometrial cancer (25%). Overall response rate was 75% (95% CI 57-89) at 6 months; 80% (95% CI 52-96) in complex atypical hyperplasia, 67% (95% CI 30-93) in grade 1 endometrial cancer, and 75% (CI 35-97) in grade 2 endometrial cancer. Of the clinicopathologic features evaluated, there was a trend toward the association of lack of exogenous progesterone effect in the pathology specimen with nonresponse to the IUD (P=.05). Median uterine diameter was 1.3 cm larger in women who did not respond to the IUD (P=.04). CONCLUSION:Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD therapy for the conservative treatment of complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer resulted in return to normal histology in a majority of patients.
Authors: Richard J Zaino; James Kauderer; Cornelia Liu Trimble; Steven G Silverberg; John P Curtin; Peter C Lim; Donald G Gallup Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Frederic Amant; Philippe Moerman; Patrick Neven; Dirk Timmerman; Erik Van Limbergen; Ignace Vergote Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Aug 6-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E Weiderpass; H O Adami; J A Baron; C Magnusson; R Bergström; A Lindgren; N Correia; I Persson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-07-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ross F Harrison; Weiguo He; Shuangshuang Fu; Hui Zhao; Charlotte C Sun; Rudy S Suidan; Terri L Woodard; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Shannon N Westin; Sharon H Giordano; Larissa A Meyer Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Nicole Concin; Carien L Creutzberg; Ignace Vergote; David Cibula; Mansoor Raza Mirza; Simone Marnitz; Jonathan A Ledermann; Tjalling Bosse; Cyrus Chargari; Anna Fagotti; Christina Fotopoulou; Antonio González-Martín; Sigurd F Lax; Domenica Lorusso; Christian Marth; Philippe Morice; Remi A Nout; Dearbhaile E O'Donnell; Denis Querleu; Maria Rosaria Raspollini; Jalid Sehouli; Alina E Sturdza; Alexandra Taylor; Anneke M Westermann; Pauline Wimberger; Nicoletta Colombo; François Planchamp; Xavier Matias-Guiu Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Louise A Brinton; Cher M Dallal; Britton Trabert; Ashley M Geczik; Doug C Bauer; Diana S M Buist; Jane A Cauley; Roni T Falk; Gretchen L Gierach; Trisha F Hue; James V Lacey; Andrea Z LaCroix; Kara A Michels; Jeffrey A Tice; Xia Xu Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Marcia A Ciccone; Stephanie A Whitman; Charlotte L Conturie; Niquelle Brown; Christina E Dancz; Begum Özel; Koji Matsuo Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Rachel S Mandelbaum; Marcia A Ciccone; David J Nusbaum; Mahdi Khoshchehreh; Heena Purswani; Elise B Morocco; Meghan B Smith; Shinya Matsuzaki; Christina E Dancz; Begum Ozel; Lynda D Roman; Richard J Paulson; Koji Matsuo Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Rachel S Mandelbaum; Marcia Ciccone; Mahdi Khoshchehreh; Heena Pursuwani; Elise B Morocco; Shinya Matsuzaki; Christina E Dancz; Begum Ozel; Richard J Paulson; Lynda Roman Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Shannon N Westin; Bryan Fellman; Charlotte C Sun; Russell R Broaddus; Misty L Woodall; Navdeep Pal; Diana L Urbauer; Lois M Ramondetta; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pamela T Soliman; Nicole D Fleming; Jennifer K Burzawa; Alpa M Nick; Andrea M Milbourne; Ying Yuan; Karen H Lu; Diane C Bodurka; Robert L Coleman; Melinda S Yates Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-08-15 Impact factor: 8.661