Simone Garzon1, Stefano Uccella2, Pier Carlo Zorzato2, Mariachiara Bosco2, Massimo P Franchi2, Vladimir Student3, Andrea Mariani3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, MN, USA - simone.garzon@yahoo.it. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, MN, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Primary surgery is effective in low-risk endometrial cancer (EC). However, in young women, this approach compromises fertility. Therefore, fertility-sparing management in the case of atypical endometrial hyperplasia, or grade 1 EC limited to the endometrium can be considered. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a literature review to identify studies involving women with EC or atypical hyperplasia who underwent fertility-sparing management. We conducted multiple bibliographic databases research from their inception to May 2020. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Oral therapy with medroxyprogesterone acetate and megestrol acetate is recommended based on extensive experience, although without consensus on dosages and treatment length. The pooled complete response rate, recurrence rate, and pregnancy rate of EC were 76.3%, 30.7% and 52.1%, respectively. Endometrial hyperplasia was associated with better outcomes. LNG-IUSs appears an alternative treatment, particularly in patients who do not tolerate oral therapy. In a randomized controlled trial, megestrol acetate plus metformin guaranteed an earlier complete response rate than megestrol acetate alone for endometrial hyperplasia. Hysteroscopic resection followed by progestogens is associated with a higher complete response rate, live birth rate, and lower recurrence rate than oral progestogens alone. Pooled complete response, recurrence, and live birth rates were 98.1%, 4.8% and 52.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Fertility preservation appears feasible in young patients with grade 1 EC limited to the endometrium or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Progestins are the mainstay of such management. The addition of Metformin and hysteroscopic resection seems to provide some improvements. However, fertility preservation is not the standard approach for staging and treatment, potentially worsening oncologic outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Primary surgery is effective in low-risk endometrial cancer (EC). However, in young women, this approach compromises fertility. Therefore, fertility-sparing management in the case of atypical endometrial hyperplasia, or grade 1 EC limited to the endometrium can be considered. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a literature review to identify studies involving women with EC or atypical hyperplasia who underwent fertility-sparing management. We conducted multiple bibliographic databases research from their inception to May 2020. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Oral therapy with medroxyprogesterone acetate and megestrol acetate is recommended based on extensive experience, although without consensus on dosages and treatment length. The pooled complete response rate, recurrence rate, and pregnancy rate of EC were 76.3%, 30.7% and 52.1%, respectively. Endometrial hyperplasia was associated with better outcomes. LNG-IUSs appears an alternative treatment, particularly in patients who do not tolerate oral therapy. In a randomized controlled trial, megestrol acetate plus metformin guaranteed an earlier complete response rate than megestrol acetate alone for endometrial hyperplasia. Hysteroscopic resection followed by progestogens is associated with a higher complete response rate, live birth rate, and lower recurrence rate than oral progestogens alone. Pooled complete response, recurrence, and live birth rates were 98.1%, 4.8% and 52.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Fertility preservation appears feasible in young patients with grade 1 EC limited to the endometrium or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Progestins are the mainstay of such management. The addition of Metformin and hysteroscopic resection seems to provide some improvements. However, fertility preservation is not the standard approach for staging and treatment, potentially worsening oncologic outcomes.
Authors: Gabriela Correia-Barros; Beatriz Serambeque; Maria João Carvalho; Carlos Miguel Marto; Marta Pineiro; Teresa M V D Pinho E Melo; Maria Filomena Botelho; Mafalda Laranjo Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: Anna Franca Cavaliere; Federica Perelli; Simona Zaami; Marco D'Indinosante; Irene Turrini; Marco Giusti; Giuseppe Gullo; Giuseppe Vizzielli; Alberto Mattei; Giovanni Scambia; Annalisa Vidiri; Fabrizio Signore Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Gulzhanat Aimagambetova; Sanja Terzic; Antonio Simone Laganà; Gauri Bapayeva; Philip la Fleur; Milan Terzic Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 4.241