Risk factors of progression to endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate risk factors of progression to endometrial cancer (EC) in women with non-atypical and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (EH).
METHODS: The data of 62,333 women with EH diagnostic codes from 2007 to 2018 were sourced from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service databases. The data from 11,525 women with non-atypical EH and 2,219 women with atypical EH who met the selection criteria were extracted for analysis.
RESULTS: Risk of EC in women with EH decreased in 40-49 year olds compared to other ages (non-atypical EH: [≤39 vs. 40-49 years] HR, 0.557; 95% CI, 0.439-0.708; P<0.001; [≤39 vs. ≥50 years] P = 0.739; atypical EH: [≤39 vs. 40-49 years] HR, 0.391; 95% CI, 0.229-0.670; P = 0.001; [≤39 vs. ≥50 years] P = 0.712). Risk of EC increased with increase in number of follow-up biopsies in women with non-atypical EH (1 biopsy: HR, 1.835; 95% CI, 1.282-2.629; P = 0.001; ≥2 biopsies: HR, 3.644; 95% CI, 2.585-5.317; P<0.001) and in women receiving ≥2 follow-up biopsies with atypical EH (HR, 3.827; 95% CI, 1.924-7.612; P = 0.001). Time of progression to EC decreased in women ≥50 years old with non-atypical EH compared to other ages (P = 0.004) and showed no differences among ages in women with atypical EH (P = 0.576). Progestational agents were a protective factor for EC in women with non-atypical EH (HR, 0.703; 95% CI, 0.565-0.876; P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: In this claim data analysis, women ≤39 and ≥50 years old with EH were at a high risk for progression to EC, and repeat follow-up biopsy after a diagnosis of EH increased detection of EC. Progestational agents were an effective modality to prevent EC in women with non-atypical EH.

Introduction

Endometrial hyperplasia (EH) is a pathological condition characterized by proliferation of endometrial glandular and stromal structures. The revised World Health Organization (WHO) classification divides EH into non-atypical EH and atypical EH/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia without the previous simple and complex subtypes [1, 2]. EH, particularly with atypia, is a precursor to endometrial carcinoma (EC) [3]. In a study in the United States (US), the peak incidence of EH was 142/100,000 and 213/100,000 woman-years in simple and complex non-atypical EH, respectively (in subjects in their early 50s) and 56/100,000 woman-years in atypical EH (in subjects in their early 60s) [4].

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common cancer of the female reproductive tract [5]. The incidence of endometrial cancer has increased globally due to the increasing number of elderly people and increasing rates of obesity [6, 7].

In a retrospective study in which 170 women with EH were followed for a mean of 13.4 years (from 1 to 26.7 years), progression to EC occurred in 1.6% and 23% of women with non-atypical and atypical EH, respectively [2]. In a matched case-control study, cumulative risk of progression to EC at years 4, 9, and 19 after EH diagnosis was 1.2%, 1.9%, and 4.6%, respectively, in women with non-atypical EH and 8.2%, 12.4%, and 27.5% in women with atypical EH [8].

Several studies have reported that 10–59% of women with atypical EH had occult EC detected at hysterectomy [9]. Advanced age, menopause, obesity, diabetes mellitus, abnormal uterine bleeding, and (complex) atypical EH have been reported as predictive factors of concurrent EC in women with EH [9-11]. However, clinical risk factors related to progression to EC in women with non-atypical and atypical EH have not been reported. Some studies have reported that serum DNA integrity index and molecular markers and immune cells related to the immune escape mechanisms may play roles in EC [12, 13]. Evaluating these roles in EH might be of benefit to predicting progression to EC in women with EH.

Management for EH has aimed to control symptoms such as heavy bleeding, detect concurrent EC, and prevent subsequent development of EC [14]. However, no studies have evaluated risk factors that predict progression to EC in women with EH. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate factors that influence EH progression to EC.

Materials and methods

Study population and design

South Korea has a universal health coverage system, the National Health Insurance, that covers approximately 98% of the overall Korean population. The claims data of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) represent 46 million patients per year [15]. This claims data study used the HIRA databases and data with EH diagnostic codes generated between January 1, 2007 and February 28, 2018.

Inclusion criteria were women who had diagnostic codes for EH with procedure codes for endometrial biopsy within 60 days before or after an initial diagnostic code and women receiving 1 or more management approaches for EH at least 90 days after diagnosis of EH. Women who were diagnosed with EC or who underwent hysterectomy within 1 year after diagnosis of EH were excluded. Because the HIRA dataset uses anonymous identification codes to protect patients' personal information, approval of this study was waived by the Institutional Review Board of Inha University Hospital (No. 2019-11-015) on November 25, 2019.

Data collection

The diagnostic codes in the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) were used to obtain data for women who had been diagnosed with EH (N85.0: endometrial glandular hyperplasia and N85.1: endometrial adenomatous hyperplasia [atypia]). Simple or complex EH was not distinguished. The procedure codes were derived from health insurance medical care expense claim forms. The procedure codes for endometrial biopsy were dilatation and curettage (R4521), endometrial biopsy (C8571, C8572), aspiration biopsy (C8573), simple curettage (C8574), and hysteroscopic curettage (C8575). The procedure codes for hysterectomy were simple abdominal hysterectomy (R4143, R4147), complex abdominal hysterectomy (R4144, R4148), laparoscopic hysterectomy (simple [R0141] and complex [R0142]), subtotal hysterectomy (R4130), vaginal hysterectomy (simple [R4149] and complex [R4140]), and radical hysterectomy (R4154, R4155). EC was assigned in women who had related diagnostic codes (ICD-10: C54, C54.0, C54.1, C54.2, C54.3, C54.8, C54.9, C55) with procedure codes for endometrial biopsy or hysterectomy within 60 days before or after an initial diagnostic code or women who had diagnostic codes for EC more than 2 times within 1 year. In Korea, every person with a cancer diagnosis is registered with a unique code (called a C code) in the National Cancer Registry. This C code is used in all subsequent medical records and claims created for that patient. Therefore, cancer diagnosis based on claims is considered reliable [16]. Type 2 diabetes was defined as the presence of identical E11-E14 codes (ICD-10) at least twice for 1 patient or a diabetes drug code (including biguanides, sulfonylurea, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, insulin, or glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists) plus an E11-E14 code [16]. Endometriosis was defined as presence of a diagnostic N80X code (ICD-10) with associated procedures that included fulguration (R4165), ovarian cystectomy (R4421, R4430), adnexectomy (R4331, R4332), and hysterectomy (R4147, R4148, R0141, R0142, R4130, R4149, R4140) within 60 days before or after an initial diagnostic code. ICD-10 codes for abnormal uterine bleeding were N93, N93.8, and N93.9. Progestational agents comprised medroxyprogesterone acetate and megestrol acetate.

All data collection was performed in parallel for both non-atypical and atypical EH. EH type; age at diagnosis of EH; presence of type 2 diabetes, endometriosis, or abnormal uterine bleeding; a diagnostic code for EC; tamoxifen use; types and use of hormone therapy (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system [LNG-IUS] or progestational agents); number of follow-up biopsies after diagnosis of EH; and time from diagnosis of EH to diagnosis of EC were extracted.

Statistical analyses

SAS® Enterprise Guide® version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for data mining and analysis. Categorical variables were reported as number and percentage, and continuous variables were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The categorical variables were analyzed using the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, whereas the continuous variables were analyzed using the two-tailed independent t test or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni's correction. In addition, the associations of variables with EC in each EH type were analyzed using the Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model with or without adjusting for confounding factors. All variables were used as confounding factors. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Data from 62,333 women were entered into the database, and the data from 13,744 women met the selection criteria (Fig 1). The data from 11,525 women with non-atypical EH and 2,219 women with atypical EH were extracted for analysis.

Fig 1

Flow chart showing selection of eligible patients.

Baseline characteristics of women with endometrial hyperplasia

In total, 48.2% of women with EH were diagnosed between 40–49 years of age. Younger and older ages had lower incidences of EH. Age at diagnosis of EH was not different between women with non-atypical and atypical EH. Type 2 diabetes and endometriosis increased in women with atypical EH compared to those with non-atypical EH. In addition, 30.9% of women with EH did not receive follow-up biopsy after diagnosis of EH, and the frequency of this result was similar in the 2 EH types. Of note, 34.6% of those subjects received only 1 follow-up biopsy, and the frequency was higher in women with non-atypical EH. 3 and ≥4 follow-up biopsies were performed more frequently in women with atypical EH. Abnormal uterine bleeding, tamoxifen use, and use of hormone therapy (LNG-IUS and progestational agents) were not different between women with non-atypical and atypical EH (Table 1). Data for oral contraceptive use were not available.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of women with endometrial hyperplasia.

	Total	Non-atypical EH	Atypical EH	P value
	n = 13744	n = 11525 (83.9%)	n = 2219 (16.1%)
Age at diagnosis of EH (years), n (%)
<30	1079 (7.9)	892 (7.8)	187 (8.4)	0.369
30–39	2959 (21.5)	2460 (21.3)	499 (22.5)
40–49	6628 (48.2)	5589 (48.5)	1039 (46.8)
50–59	2394 (17.4)	2018 (17.5)	376 (17.0)
≥60	684 (5.0)	566 (4.9)	118 (5.3)
Type 2 diabetes, n (%)
No	11257 (81.9)	9525 (82.7)	1728 (77.8)	<0.001
Yes	2487 (18.1)	1999 (17.3)	491 (22.2)
Endometriosis, n (%)
No	10465 (76.1)	8818 (76.5)	1647 (74.2)	0.020
Yes	3279 (23.9)	2707 (23.5)	572 (25.8)
Abnormal uterine bleeding, n (%)
No	4859 (35.4)	4088 (35.5)	771 (34.8)	0.513
Yes	8885 (64.6)	7437 (64.5)	1448 (65.2)
Use of tamoxifen, n (%)
No	13607 (99.0)	11411 (99.0)	2196 (99.0)	0.837
Yes	137 (1.0)	114 (1.0)	23 (1.0)
Hormone therapy, n (%)
LNG-IUSa
No	12699 (92.4)	10657 (92.5)	2042 (92.0)	0.469
Yes	1045 (7.6)	868 (7.5)	177 (7.0)
Progestational agents
No	6820 (49.6)	5727 (49.7)	1093 (49.3)	0.707
Yes	6924 (50.4)	5798 (50.3)	1126 (50.7)
No. of follow-up biopsies after diagnosis of EH, n (%)
0	4244 (30.9)	3560 (30.9)	684 (30.8)	<0.001
1	4751 (34.6)	4074 (35.3)	677 (30.5)
2	2466 (17.9)	2060 (17.9)	406 (18.3)
3	1167 (8.5)	942 (8.2)	225 (10.2)
≥4	1116 (8.1)	889 (7.7)	227 (10.2)

EH, endometrial hyperplasia

aLevonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system

Incidence and distribution of endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia

Incidence of EC showed a higher tendency in women with atypical EH than in those with non-atypical EH. The C54.1 diagnostic code of endometrial EC was identified in 88.7% of EC cases. Incidence of EC diagnosed with C54.1 was not different between EH types (Table 2). In 1< and ≤ 3 years after diagnosis of EH, EC occurred more frequently in women with non-atypical EH compared to those with atypical EH. EC occurred more frequently in women with atypical EH 3 years after diagnosis of EH than for those with non-atypical EH. However, in cases diagnosed at 5< and ≤ 6 years, EC occurred similarly in both non-atypical and atypical EH. Moreover, contrary to atypical EH, in women with non-atypical EH, EC occurred most frequently at 1< and ≤ 3 years after diagnosis of EH and decreased thereafter (Table 2).

Table 2

Incidence and distribution of endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia.

	Total	Non-atypical EH	Atypical EH	P value
	n = 13744	n = 11525 (83.9%)	n = 2219 (16.1%)
EC, n (%)
No	13294 (96.7)	11161 (96.8)	2133 (96.1)	0.082
Yes	450 (3.3)	364 (3.2)	86 (3.9)
EC (C54.1), n (%)
No	13345 (97.1)	11201 (97.2)	2144 (96.6)	0.144
Yes	399 (2.9)	324 (2.8)	75 (3.4)
Distribution of EC according to diagnostic code, n (%)
C54	0	0	0	-
C54.0 (Isthmus uteri)	3 (0.7)	3 (0.8)	0	0.447
C54.1 (Endometrium)	399 (88.7)	324 (89.0)	75 (87.2)	0.144
C54.2 (Myometrium)	0	0	0	-
C54.3 (Fundus uteri)	0	0	0	-
C54.8 (Overlapping lesion of corpus uteri)	3 (0.7)	3 (0.8)	0	0.447
C54.9 (Corpus uteri, unspecified)	33 (7.3)	27 (7.5)	6 (7.0)	0.750
C55 (Malignant neoplasm of uterus, part unspecified)	12 (2.6)	7 (1.9)	5 (5.8)	0.016
Distribution of EC according to time from diagnosis of EH to diagnosis of EC (years), n (%)
1< and ≤ 2	94 (20.9)	86 (23.6)	8 (9.3)	0.038
2< and ≤ 3	91 (20.2)	77 (21.2)	14 (16.3)
3< and ≤ 4	72 (16.0)	53 (14.6)	19 (22.1)
4< and ≤ 5	67 (14.9)	51 (14.0)	16 (18.6)
5< and ≤ 6	43 (9.5)	35 (9.6)	8 (9.3)
6< and ≤ 7	25 (5.6)	18 (4.9)	7 (8.1)
7<	58 (12.9)	44 (12.1)	14 (16.3)

EH, endometrial hyperplasia; EC, endometrial cancer

Risk factor association with endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia

Both women with non-atypical and atypical EH showed significant decrease in risk of EC at 40–49 years old compared to women ≤39 years. However, risk of EC was not significantly different between women ≤39 and those ≥50 years old; the incidence of EC increased in women with type 2 diabetes. However, type 2 diabetes was not a risk factor for EC; risk of EC tended to decrease in women with endometriosis when adjusted for other confounding factors (Table 3).

Table 3

Association of risk factors with endometrial cancer occurrence in women with endometrial hyperplasia.

	Non-atypical EH n = 11525 (83.9%)							Atypical EH n = 2219 (16.1%)
	Non-EC n = 11161 (96.8%)	EC n = 364 (3.2%)	P value	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysisb		Non-EC n = 2133 (96.1%)	EC n = 86 (3.9%)	P value	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysisb
				HR (95% CI)	P value	HR (95% CI)	P value				HR (95% CI)	P value	HR (95% CI)	P value
Age at diagnosis of EH (years), n (%)
≤39	3202 (28.7)	150 (41.2)	<0.001	Reference		Reference		645 (30.2)	41 (47.7)		Reference		Reference
40–49	5463 (49.0)	126 (34.6)		0.511 (0.403–0.648)	<0.001	0.557 (0.439–0.708)	<0.001	1018 (47.7)	21 (24.4)	< 0.001	0.337 (0.199–0.570)	<0.001	0.391 (0.229–0.670)	0.001
≥50	2496 (22.3)	88 (24.2)		0.807 (0.621–1.050)	0.111	0.954 (0.721–1.261)	0.739	470 (22.0)	24 (27.9)		0.797 (0.481–1.319)	0.377	1.113 (0.630–1.968)	0.712
Type 2 diabetes, n (%)
No	9260 (83.0)	269 (73.9)	<0.001	Reference		Reference		1669 (78.3)	59 (68.6)	0.035	Reference		Reference
Yes	1901 (17.0)	95 (26.1)		1.187 (0.938–1.501)	0.154	1.159 (0.915–1.468)	0.222	464 (21.7)	27 (31.4)		1.243 (0.788–1.962)	0.350	1.155 (0.727–1.835)	0.543
Endometriosis, n (%)
No	8542 (76.5)	276 (75.8)	0.753	Reference		Reference		1580 (74.1)	67 (77.9)	0.426	Reference		Reference
Yes	2619 (23.5)	88 (24.2)		0.899 (0.707–1.142)	0.383	0.797 (0.624–1.017)	0.068	553 (25.9)	19 (22.1)		0.738 (0.443–1.228)	0.245	0.634 (0.377–1.065)	0.085
Abnormal uterine bleeding, n (%)
No	3992 (35.8)	96 (26.4)	0.001	Reference		Reference		741 (34.7)	30 (34.9)		Reference		Reference
Yes	7169 (64.2)	268 (73.6)		1.339 (1.060–1.691)	0.014	1.123 (0.880–1.433)	0.350	1392 (65.3)	56 (65.1)	0.978	0.961 (0.617–1.498)	0.862	0.749 (0.470–1.195)	0.226
Use of tamoxifen, n (%)
No	11055 (99.1)	356 (97.8)	0.018	Reference		Reference		2111 (99.0)	85 (98.8)		Reference		Reference
Yes	106 (0.9)	8 (2.2)		1.747 (0.867–3.523)	0.119	1.523 (0.751–3.086)	0.243	22 (1.0)	1 (1.2)	0.906	1.199 (0.167–8.609)	0.857	1.315 (0.180–0.963)	0.788
Hormone therapy, n (%)
LNG-IUSa
No	10330 (92.5)	327 (89.8)	0.053	Reference		Reference		1966 (92.2)	76 (88.4)	0.202	Reference		Reference
Yes	831 (7.5)	37 (10.2)		1.463 (1.041–2.055)	0.028	1.265 (0.892–1.795)	0.187	167 (7.8)	10 (11.6)		1.836 (0.949–3.553)	0.712	1.606 (0.806–3.197)	0.178
Progestational agents
No	5545 (49.7)	182 (50.0)	0.905	Reference		Reference		1057 (49.6)	36 (41.9)	0.162	Reference		Reference
Yes	5616 (50.3)	182 (50.0)		0.912 (0.742–1.120)	0.377	0.703 (0.565–0.876)	0.002	1076 (50.4)	50 (58.1)		1.376 (0.896–2.112)	0.144	1.022 (0.630–1.658)	0.929
No. of follow-up biopsies after diagnosis of EH, n (%)
0	3516 (31.5)	44 (12.1)	<0.001	Reference		Reference		672 (31.5)	12 (14.0)	<0.001	Reference		Reference
1	3974 (35.6)	100 (27.5)		1.740 (1.220–2.480)	0.002	1.835 (1.282–2.629)	0.001	658 (30.8)	19 (22.1)		1.641 (0.796–3.380)	0.180	1.825 (0.871–3.824)	0.111
≥2	3671 (32.9)	220 (60.4)		3.303 (2.389–4.567)	<0.001	3.644 (2.585–5.317)	<0.001	803 (37.7)	55 (63.9)		3.337 (1.787–6.231)	0.001	3.827 (1.924–7.612)	0.001

EH, endometrial hyperplasia; EC, endometrial cancer; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval

aLevonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.

bThe data were adjusted for all risk factors (age at diagnosis of EH, type 2 diabetes, endometriosis, abnormal uterine bleeding, use of tamoxifen, LNG-IUS, progestational agents, and number of follow-up biopsies after diagnosis of EH).

Women with non-atypical EH showed increase in EC in women with abnormal uterine bleeding and LNG-IUS. However, there were no risk factors for EC when adjusted for other confounding factors, and the incidence of EC increased in women using tamoxifen. However, tamoxifen use was not a risk factor for EC; progestational agents were associated with significant decrease of EC risk when adjusted for other confounding factors, and the risk of EC significantly increased according to number of follow-up biopsies after diagnosis of EH (Table 3).

The following findings were identified for women with atypical EH: abnormal uterine bleeding, tamoxifen use, and use of hormone therapy (LNG-IUS and progestational agents) were not associated with EC and were not risk factors for EC, and the risk of EC significantly increased when ≥2 follow-up biopsies were performed after diagnosis of EH (Table 3).

Incidence of and progression time to endometrial cancer according to age at diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia

The cumulative incidence of EC was associated with a higher tendency in women with atypical EH than in those with non-atypical EH (P = 0.082). The incidence density of EC was not significantly different between women with non-atypical and atypical EH (P = 0.913). Cumulative incidence and incidence density of EC according to age at diagnosis of EH were associated with the following findings: in women with non-atypical EH, the lowest incidence occurred in women 40–49 years of age and the highest in women ≥70 years old; in women with atypical EH, the lowest incidence was for women 40–49 years of age and the highest was in women 30–39 or ≥70 years of age (Table 4).

Table 4

Incidence of and progression time to endometrial cancer according to age at diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia.

	Non-atypical EH			Atypical EH
	Total n = 11525	EC n = 364	Incidence (95% CI)	Total n = 2219	EC n = 86	Incidence (95% CI)
Cumulative incidence (per 1000 persons)
Total	11525	364	31.6 (25.8–34.9)	2219	86	38.8 (31.3–47.4)
Age at diagnosis of EH (years)
<30	892	40	44.8 (3.8–62.0)	187	8	42.8 (20.1–79.6)
30–39	2460	110	44.7 (37.1–53.4)	499	33	66.1 (46.7–90.6)
40–49	5589	126	22.5 (18.9–26.7)	1039	21	20.2 (12.9–30.2)
50–59	2018	66	32.7 (25.6–41.2)	376	18	47.9 (29.5–73.2)
60–69	406	14	34.5 (19.8–55.3)	87	4	46.0 (14.8–107.2)
≥70	106	8	75.5 (36.7–138.3)	31	2	64.5 (11.0–197.2)
Incidence density (per 1000 person years)
Total	56,883.4	364	6.4 (5.5–7.1)	13,264.3	86	6.5 (5.2–8.0)
Age at diagnosis of EH (years)
<30	4307.8	40	9.3 (6.7–12.5)	1090.2	8	7.3 (3.4–13.9)
30–39	12513.3	110	8.8 (7.3–10.5)	2971.0	33	11.1 (7.8–15.4)
40–49	27663.5	126	4.6 (3.8–5.4)	6204.5	21	3.4 (2.2–5.1)
50–59	9733.5	66	6.8 (5.3–8.6)	2298.4	18	7.8 (4.8–12.1)
60–69	1892.2	14	7.4 (4.2–12.1)	518.0	4	7.7 (2.5–18.5)
≥70	689.0	8	11.6 (5.4–21.9)	182.3	2	11.0 (1.8–35.8)
Time from diagnosis of EH to diagnosis of EC (years), mean±SD
Age at diagnosis of EH (years)
≤39	3.95 ± 2.18		P = 0.004	4.38 ± 2.31		P = 0.576
40–49	4.11 ± 2.32			4.26 ± 1.94
≥50	3.22 ± 1.88			4.89 ± 2.28

EH, endometrial hyperplasia; EC, endometrial cancer

Time to progression to EC in women with non-atypical EH decreased in women ≥50 years old compared to other ages (≤39 and 40–49 years old). Time to progression to EC in women with atypical EH was not different among ages (Table 4).

Discussion

Summary

In this claims data analysis of 11,525 women with EH, women ≤39 and ≥50 years with EH were at high risk for progression to EC. Detection of EC increased in proportion to number of follow-up biopsies performed after diagnosis of EH. Time to progression to EC was shorter in women ≥50 years old with non-atypical EH and similar among ages in women with atypical EH. Progestational agents were a protective factor for progression to EC only in women with non-atypical EH. Endometriosis had a potentially protective role for EC. However, type 2 diabetes, abnormal uterine bleeding, tamoxifen use, and LNG-IUS were not risk factors for progression to EC.

Interpretation

Incidence of endometrial cancer

Retrospective studies have reported that atypical EH is associated with a higher risk for concurrent EC or progression to EC compared to non-atypical EH [2, 3, 8–11]. However, in this study, the incidence of EC showed a higher tendency only in women with atypical EH. This difference might be attributed to use of strict criteria for eligible women, followed by potentially excessive exclusion of data because of the use of claims data and because medical records cannot be reviewed.

A nested case-control study reported that cumulative risks of progression to EC increased with time in both EH types and were higher in women with atypical EH than in those with non-atypical EH [8]. However, in this study, at 1< and ≤ 3 years after diagnosis of non-atypical EH, EC occurred most frequently and more frequently than in women with atypical EH. These findings suggest that EC diagnosed in the first 3 years after diagnosis of non-atypical EH may be cancer already present at the first diagnostic procedures such as endometrial sampling, dilatation and curettage, and hysteroscopic guided endometrial biopsy, which are usually used to diagnose EH and EC in our country.

Age at diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia: A risk factor

Retrospective studies have reported that women ≥50–53 years old with EH were independent predictors of concurrent EC [9, 11]. In a retrospective case–control study, concurrent EC increased in women 40–59 and ≥60 years of age with EH compared to such women <40 years old [10]. In this study, risk of progression to EC in women with EH decreased in the 40–49 years group, suggesting that women ≤39 and ≥50 years old with EH were at higher risk for progression to EC. Moreover, cumulative incidence and incidence density of EC in women with EH were lowest in women 40–49 years old and highest in women ≥70 years old, and the highest level was observed in women 30–39 years old with atypical EH. Our findings are similar to those of a previous study in Korea that reported that the annual incidence rate of EC has been increasing (annual percent changes [APC], 6.9% during 1999–2010). In that study, women <30 years old had the highest APC (11.2%), women ≥80 years old had the second highest APC (9.5%), and women 40–49 and 70–79 years old had the lowest APC (5.3% and 5.6%, respectively) [6]. In our study, it is possible that women 40–49 years old had relatively mild EH (i.e., simple > complex) because most (48.2%) were diagnosed at an age of 40–49 years, suggesting a tendency to actively undergo examination. It is also possible that younger or older women had relatively severe EH (i.e., simple < complex) because they tended to visit the hospital when they experienced symptoms.

In addition, in this study, progression to EC occurred more quickly in women ≥50 years old with non-atypical EH. This finding supports the hypothesis that women ≥50 years old with non-atypical EH have a high risk for progression to EC.

Follow-up biopsy after diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia: A protective factor

This study showed that detection of EC in women with EH increased in proportion to an increase in number of follow-up biopsies. However, 30.9% of women with EH did not undergo follow-up biopsy after diagnosis of EH. Moreover, reflecting a more serious concern for EC in women with atypical EH, women with atypical EH received more follow-up biopsies than women with non-atypical EH. Therefore, if women with EH receive repeated follow-up biopsies, it may increase the detection rate of progression to EC.

Progestational agents: A protective factor

Oral progestational agents have been a popular therapeutic choice in women with non-atypical EH and have been used as conservative treatment in women with atypical EH [17, 18]. In meta-analyses of randomized trials, LNG-IUS achieved higher regression rates and lower hysterectomy rates than progestational agents in women with non-atypical EH and both EH types [17, 19]. In a small retrospective study (n = 48), LNG-IUS achieved high regression rates in women with atypical complex hyperplasia or EC [20]. However, in this study, LNG-IUS was not associated with progression to EC in women with EH; in addition, progestational agents had a protective role for progression to EC only in women with non-atypical EH and did not impact women with atypical EH. These findings might be attributed to the severity of EH among women that used LNG-IUS. In this study, in women with non-atypical EH, LNG-IUS had been used in 7.5% of those diagnosed as non-EC and 10.2% of those diagnosed as EC; in women with atypical EH, LNG-IUS had been used in 7.8% of those diagnosed as non-EC and 11.6% of those diagnosed as EC.

Endometriosis and other factors

Endometriosis is a common gynecologic disease, affecting 5–15% of premenopausal women and 2.2–5% of postmenopausal women [21, 22]. EC has been reported to occur in 0.17–6.7% of women with endometriosis [23-25]. Although it is not clear whether endometriosis is a risk factor for EC, some large-scale studies have reported a significantly increased risk for endometrial cancer in women with a diagnosis of endometriosis [23-25]. In this study, women with atypical EH experienced endometriosis more frequently than women with non-atypical EH. Additionally, risk of progression to EC in women with EH tended to decrease in women with endometriosis. We presume that the use of progestational agents for treatment of endometriosis might contribute to our finding suggesting that progestational agents have a protective role against EC in women with EH. This study is the first to evaluate the relationship between EH and endometriosis. Therefore, results of this study should be evaluated further in subsequent studies.

Diabetes mellitus and/or high BMI (≥ 35 or ≥27 kg/m2) have been reported as predictive factors of concurrent EC in women with EH [10, 11]. In this study, women with atypical EH had type 2 diabetes more frequently than women with non-atypical EH. However, type 2 diabetes was not a risk factor for progression to EH.

Abnormal uterine bleeding is the most common symptom of EH. Some studies have reported that, based on endometrial biopsy, about 70%, 15%, and 15% of women with abnormal uterine bleeding are diagnosed with benign findings, EH, and EC, respectively [26]. In this study, abnormal uterine bleeding occurred similarly between women with non-atypical and atypical EH and was not a risk factor for progression to EH.

The incidence (1.3–20%) of EH has been noted to increase in postmenopausal women with breast cancer treated with tamoxifen compared to the incidence (0–10%) in those who did not receive tamoxifen [27]. Various studies have reported that tamoxifen use induces a 1.3–7.5-fold increase in the relative risk of endometrial cancer [27]. However, a retrospective study reported that, in 333 peri/postmenopausal women with breast cancer, incidences of EH and EC were lower in women treated with tamoxifen compared to those who did not receive tamoxifen (EH: 3% vs. 11.1%; EC: 3.8% vs. 11.1%) [28]. Moreover, in a recent multicenter retrospective cohort study (n = 1129), there were no differences in incidences of EH and EC among women with breast cancer who received tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and no treatment [29]. In this study, tamoxifen use was not different between women with non-atypical and atypical EH and was not a risk factor for progression to EH, increasing controversy about the role of tamoxifen as an inducer of EC.

Patient selection

Many women are assigned an EH diagnostic code before they undergo endometrial biopsy. Some of them continue to have diagnostic codes of EH during follow-up, although the pathology does not show EH. Based on a review of medical records in Inha University Hospital, women with continuous EH diagnostic codes without EH pathology were followed for a mean of 90 days after the initial EH diagnostic code. Therefore, we only included women in this study that had EH diagnostic codes and were followed up for at least 90 days after initial EH diagnostic code, to adjust for these diagnostic inconsistencies and to generate a more appropriate study population.

Moreover, we excluded women who were diagnosed with EC within 1 year after diagnosis of EH to exclude women with concurrent EC. We also excluded women who underwent hysterectomy within 1 year after diagnosis of EH because this study intended to evaluate risk and risk factors of progression to EC in women with EH.

Strengths and limitations

The significance of this study was the ability to verify risk factors that are related to progression to EC in women with non-atypical and atypical EH. To our knowledge, this is the first report that identifies clinical risk factors that predict progression to EC in women with EH.

There were some limitations to this study based on use of claim data. First, because diseases in this study were indirectly defined based on diagnosis, procedure, and drug codes, some cases may have been incorrectly diagnosed by erroneous coding. However, women with EH and endometriosis were only selected when pathologic examinations had been performed, and EC was only selected when women had pathologic examinations or at least 2 reliable EC codes. Moreover, the type 2 diabetes indication followed the definition of a previous published study [15]. Therefore, a few incorrectly diagnosed cases might have been included in this study. Second, the population with EH could not be accurately selected because medical records could not be reviewed. However, we selected those cases based on review of medical records in our hospital to exclude women with EH diagnostic codes that were not supported by pathology. Therefore, it is likely that only a limited number of incorrect cases was analyzed in this study. Third, although we intended to exclude women with EH with concurrent EC, a small percentage of women with non-atypical EH and concurrent EC might have been included in our cohort. Finally, this study could not be considered for central pathologic review because the HIRA dataset uses anonymous identification codes.

Conclusions

Based on claim data analysis, we demonstrated that, regardless of EH type, women ≤39 and ≥50 years of age with EH had high risk for progression to EC. Moreover, this study indicates the importance of repeated follow-up biopsy after diagnosis of EH regardless of EH type. Finally, different influences of progestational agents for progression to EC depending on EH type may support current trends for non-surgical management in women with non-atypical EH and surgical management in women with atypical EH.

21 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-17525

Risk factors of progression to endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia: A retrospective cohort study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lee,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I think the manuscript is interesting. Please address all reviewers’ comments in order to improve its quality.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Diego Raimondo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

thank you for submitting your Manuscript to “Plos One” journal.

I think the manuscript is interesting. The statistical analysis is well conducted and even if this work does not add great novelties to the knowledge of both EH and EC, the wide clinical sample helps to underline some risk factor of progression from endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer.

Nevertheless, I have the follow comments:

1) According to PLOS editorial policy, all data underlying the findings described in your manuscript should be fully available without restriction. You affirm that by HIRA policy, data cannot be shared. You should have extracted the data regarding the included patients and let them available in an anonymous way, at least those regarding the investigated risk factors.

2) Some minor English mistakes should be corrected.

3) Please update bibliography, some citations are not up-to-date. Regarding endometriosis in post-menopausal women see:

Hormonal Replacement Therapy in Menopausal Women with History of Endometriosis: A Review of Literature. Zanello M et al. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Aug 14;55(8):477. doi: 10.3390/medicina55080477.

Regarding conservative treatment of EH, it has been proposed also for EC: see Conservative hysteroscopic treatment of stage I well differentiated endometrial cancer in patients with high surgical risk: a pilot study. Casadio P et al. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jul;30(4):e62. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e62. Epub 2019 Apr 22

4) In the “Conclusion” section you affirm that “Moreover, this study indicates the necessity of repeated follow-up biopsy after diagnosis of EH regardless of EH type.” (lines 341-343). This study does not indicate the necessity of biopsies; it just underlines the link between repeated biopsies and EC detection, suggesting the opportunity of repeated biopsies.

Reviewer #2: The topic of this Manuscript falls within the aims of PLOS ONE. The article provides a valuable and methodologically correct data analysis, the conclusion is consistent with data discussion and with available evidence throughout the text. Presentation of the Manuscript conforms Journal’s guideline for Authors. The topic of this study is actual, so it may be of interest for the readers.

In general, the Manuscript may benefit from some minor revisions, as suggested below:

- I don’t think that non-atypical hyperplasia evolves towards endometrial cancer more frequently in the first 3 years after diagnosis. How do you explain your data? Maybe your data could be justified by the fact that these cancers, diagnosed in the first 3 years, are actually misdiagnosed cancers already present at the first hysteroscopy. Please, indicate your opinion and specify how you in Korea usually perform the diagnosis of EH and EC (guided hysteroscopic biopsy or blind biopsy).

- How do you explain the protective role of endometriosis? Maybe the use of progestin agents in this pathology contributes to reduce the incidence of endometrial cancer in this population. Please, discuss these data and specify your opinion.

- Talking about the role of tamoxifen, in my opinion these recent studies that don’t show an increased risk of EC in women treated with tamoxifen, have to be cited. PMID: 23599784; PMID: 31425735.

- In general the manuscript could benefit of these topic-related citations: PMID: 29382392, PMID: 32226771.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

2 Nov 2020

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

thank you for submitting your Manuscript to “Plos One” journal.

I think the manuscript is interesting. The statistical analysis is well conducted and even if this work does not add great novelties to the knowledge of both EH and EC, the wide clinical sample helps to underline some risk factor of progression from endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer.

Nevertheless, I have the follow comments:

1) According to PLOS editorial policy, all data underlying the findings described in your manuscript should be fully available without restriction. You affirm that by HIRA policy, data cannot be shared. You should have extracted the data regarding the included patients and let them available in an anonymous way, at least those regarding the investigated risk factors.

� The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) dataset uses anonymous identification codes to protect patients' personal information. Therefore, if researcher may extract data of patients, data can be available in an anonymous way. However, the HIRA limits use of dataset as follows: 1. Researcher may use the HIRA dataset during specific period (paid by researcher) only using computer with specific Internet Protocol (IP) address permitted by the HIRA; 2. Researcher may have results of analysis and may not have data which are used to analyze in study. The system of the HIRA blocks researcher to take out data out of computer with specific IP address permitted by the HIRA. Because of this reason, we cannot provide data regarding the risk factors investigated in our study.

� We sincerely hope that the reviewer and editor would understand this difficult situation.

� Moreover, we can find that a lot of articles using the HIRA dataset have been published in PLOS ONE.

2) Some minor English mistakes should be corrected.

� Manuscript was rechecked by experts who are skilled authors of English language papers (www.eworldediting.com‎).

3) Please update bibliography, some citations are not up-to-date. Regarding endometriosis in post-menopausal women see:

Hormonal Replacement Therapy in Menopausal Women with History of Endometriosis: A Review of Literature. Zanello M et al. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Aug 14;55(8):477. doi: 10.3390/medicina55080477.

Regarding conservative treatment of EH, it has been proposed also for EC: see Conservative hysteroscopic treatment of stage I well differentiated endometrial cancer in patients with high surgical risk: a pilot study. Casadio P et al. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jul;30(4):e62. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e62. Epub 2019 Apr 22

� We appreciate for your good comment.

� Hormonal Replacement Therapy in Menopausal Women with History of Endometriosis: The sentence was corrected as follows: Endometriosis is a common gynecologic disease, affecting 5–15% of premenopausal women and 2.2–5% of postmenopausal women [21, 22].

: ‘affecting 5–15% of premenopausal women’ in our manuscript include ‘affects 10–15% of women of reproductive age’ provided in recommended article. Therefore, it was not changed.

� Regarding conservative treatment of EH: The article recommended by reviewer is a prospective pilot study reporting effectiveness and safety of endo-myometrial hysteroscopic resection and the placement of LNG-IUD in women diagnosed with stage IA, grade 1 endometrioid EC. That study reported that in nine women diagnosed with stage IA, grade 1 endometrioid EC which was contraindicated or refused standard treatment with external beam radiation therapy with or without brachytherapy, endo-myometrial hysteroscopic resection of the whole uterine cavity and the placement of LNG-IUD for 5 years showed no recurrence. However, this interesting article does not show specific relationship with our study evaluating risk factors of progression to EC in women with EH including role of progestational agents. Therefore, it is difficult to discuss that article in our study. We sincerely hope that the reviewer would understand this point.

4) In the “Conclusion” section you affirm that “Moreover, this study indicates the necessity of repeated follow-up biopsy after diagnosis of EH regardless of EH type.” (lines 341-343). This study does not indicate the necessity of biopsies; it just underlines the link between repeated biopsies and EC detection, suggesting the opportunity of repeated biopsies.

� We appreciate for your good comment.

� The sentence was corrected as follows: Moreover, this study indicates the importance of repeated follow-up biopsy after diagnosis of EH regardless of EH type.

Reviewer #2: The topic of this Manuscript falls within the aims of PLOS ONE. The article provides a valuable and methodologically correct data analysis, the conclusion is consistent with data discussion and with available evidence throughout the text. Presentation of the Manuscript conforms Journal’s guideline for Authors. The topic of this study is actual, so it may be of interest for the readers.

In general, the Manuscript may benefit from some minor revisions, as suggested below:

- I don’t think that non-atypical hyperplasia evolves towards endometrial cancer more frequently in the first 3 years after diagnosis. How do you explain your data? Maybe your data could be justified by the fact that these cancers, diagnosed in the first 3 years, are actually misdiagnosed cancers already present at the first hysteroscopy. Please, indicate your opinion and specify how you in Korea usually perform the diagnosis of EH and EC (guided hysteroscopic biopsy or blind biopsy).

� We appreciate for your helpful comment.

� Following sentence was inserted into discussion: …… These findings suggest that EC diagnosed in the first 3 years after diagnosis of non-atypical EH may be misdiagnosed as cancer already present at the first diagnostic procedures such as endometrial sampling, dilatation and curettage, and hysteroscopic guided endometrial biopsy, which are usually used to diagnose EH and EC in our country.

- How do you explain the protective role of endometriosis? Maybe the use of progestin agents in this pathology contributes to reduce the incidence of endometrial cancer in this population. Please, discuss these data and specify your opinion.

� We appreciate for your good comment.

� Following sentence was inserted into discussion: Additionally, risk of progression to EC in women with EH tended to decrease in women with endometriosis. We presume that the use of progestational agents for treatment of endometriosis might contribute to our finding suggesting that progestational agents have a protective role against EC in women with EH. This study is the first to evaluate the relationship between EH and endometriosis. Therefore, results of this study should be evaluated further in subsequent studies.

- Talking about the role of tamoxifen, in my opinion these recent studies that don’t show an increased risk of EC in women treated with tamoxifen, have to be cited. PMID: 23599784; PMID: 31425735.

� We appreciate for your good comment.

� Following sentences were inserted into discussion: ……….. However, a retrospective study reported that, in 333 peri/postmenopausal women with breast cancer, incidences of EH and EC were lower in women treated with tamoxifen compared to those who did not receive tamoxifen (EH: 3% vs. 11.1%; EC: 3.8% vs. 11.1%) [28]. Moreover, in a recent multicenter retrospective cohort study (n=1129), there were no differences in incidences of EH and EC among women with breast cancer who received tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and no treatment [29]. In this study, tamoxifen use was not different between women with non-atypical and atypical EH and was not a risk factor for progression to EH, increasing controversy about the role of tamoxifen as an inducer of EC.

- In general the manuscript could benefit of these topic-related citations: PMID: 29382392, PMID: 32226771.

� Following sentences were inserted into introduction: ……………. Some studies have reported that serum DNA integrity index and molecular markers and immune cells related to the immune escape mechanisms may play roles in EC [12, 13]. Evaluating these roles in EH might be of benefit to predicting progression to EC in women with EH.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (Banghyun Lee).docx

Click here for additional data file.

16 Nov 2020

Risk factors of progression to endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia: A retrospective cohort study

PONE-D-20-17525R1

Dear Dr. Banghyun Lee

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Diego Raimondo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I congratulate with the authors for the paper and the adequate comments.

Reviewers' comments:

none

18 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-17525R1

Risk factors of progression to endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia: A retrospective cohort study

Dear Dr. Lee:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Diego Raimondo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE