| Literature DB >> 35001185 |
Lisa K Nees1, Sabine Heublein1, Sahra Steinmacher2, Ingolf Juhasz-Böss3, Sara Brucker2, Clemens B Tempfer4, Markus Wallwiener5.
Abstract
Endometrial hyperplasia (EH) is the precursor lesion for endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium (EC), which represents the most common malignancy of the female reproductive tract in industrialized countries. The most important risk factor for the development of EH is chronic exposure to unopposed estrogen. Histopathologically, EH can be classified into EH without atypia (benign EH) and atypical EH/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN). Clinical management ranges from surveillance or progestin therapy through to hysterectomy, depending on the risk of progression to or concomitant EC and the patient´s desire to preserve fertility. Multiple studies support the efficacy of progestins in treating both benign and atypical EH. This review summarizes the evidence base regarding risk factors and management of EH. Additionally, we performed a systematic literature search of the databases PubMed and Cochrane Controlled Trials register for studies analyzing the efficacy of progestin treatment in women with EH.Entities:
Keywords: Atypical endometrial hyperplasia; Benign endometrial hyperplasia; Endometrial cancer; Endometrial hyperplasia; Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia; Progestin therapy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35001185 PMCID: PMC9349105 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06380-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet ISSN: 0932-0067 Impact factor: 2.493
Patient characteristics and results of prospective and retrospective cohort studies analyzing the efficacy of progestin treatment in women with EH
| Author | Year | Study type | Number of patients | Population characteristics | Intervention | Regression of EH | Persistence/progression of EH | Side effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reed [ | 2009 | CS | 185 | Complex ( | Progestin therapy (oral MPA or MGA or NETA) or no therapy | Complex EH: 59% (68/115) with progestins vs. 12% (14/115) with no therapy; Atypical EH: 54% (38/70) with progestins vs. 8% (6/70) with no therapy | 28.4% with progestins vs. 30% with no therapy (complex EH); 26.9% with progestins vs. 66.7% with no therapy (atypical EH); EC G1 in 11/28 follow-up hysterectomies | – |
| Dhar [ | 2005 | CS | 4 | Endometrioid EC, G1, PR positive | LNG-releasing IUD for at least 6 months | 1/4 | 3/4 | IUD expulsion ( |
| Wildemeersch [ | 2003 | CS | 12 | Simple EH ( | LNG-releasing IUD (14 µg/d) for at least 12 months | 12/12 | One patient developed EC, G1, which regressed in consecutive biopsies | – |
| Mandel-Baum [ | 2020 | CS | 245 | Atypical hyperplasia on in-house pathology report | Oral progestin therapy ( | 78.7% (LNG-IUD) vs. 46.7% (systemic progestins) | Progression to EC: 4.5% (LNG-IUD) vs. 15.7% (systemic progestins) | Morbidly obese women had higher benefit from LNG-IUD (HR 4.72; 95% CI 2.83–7.89) for CR) |
| Marra [ | 2014 | CS | 132 | EH without atypia (simple or complex) | Oral progesterone in 2nd half of menstrual cycle for 18 months or no treatment | 95% vs. 75%, | Regression rates were dose-dependent: 82%, 98%, and 100% for 100 mg, 200 mg and 300 mg | – |
| Simpson [ | 2014 | CS | 44 | Atypical EH ( | Oral progestin therapy ( | 24/44 (55%) | 20/44 (45%); 13/44 with regression later recurred; 3/44 were up-staged | – |
| Park [ | 2013 | CS | 48 | EC G1 with superficial myometrial invasion or EG G2/3 with no myometrial invasion | Oral progestin therapy ( | 37/48 (77%) | 16/37 (43%) | Median time to CR 17 weeks; No mortality; 10 live births |
| Park [ | 2013 | CS | 33 | Recurrence after progestin treatment for EC G1: atypical EH ( | Oral progestin therapy ( | 28/33 (85%) | 5/33 (15%) | No mortality |
| Wildemeersch [ | 2007 | CS | 20 | Simple EH ( | LNG-releasing IUD (20 µg/d) for at 14–90 months | 11/12 | 1/12 had persisting benign EH | – |
| Yang [ | 2019 | CS | 160 | atypical EH ( | Hysteroscopic resection + oral progestin therapy until CR | 148/160 (93%) | 4/160 (2%) | 15 of 60 attempting pregnancy became pregnant |
| Pal [ | 2018 | CS | 32 | atypical EH ( | LNG-IUD for 6 months | 80% (atypical EH) vs. 67% (EC G1) vs. 75% (EC G2) | 3/32 | 1/5 became pregnant and delivered |
| Scarselli [ | 2010 | CS | 34 | EH without atypia ( | LNG-IUD (20 µg/day) for 5 years (range 12–60 months) | 32/34 | 2/32 persistence; after mean follow-up of 17 years 9 had hysterectomy with EH in 5/9 cases | |
| Buttini [ | 2009 | CS | 57 | EH without atypia ( | LNG-IUD ( | 21/26 (LNG-IUD) vs. 9/10 (progestin) | 2/32 persistence; 0/57 developed EC | 1 LNG-IUD removed for side effects |
| Varma [ | 2008 | CS | 105 | EH without atypia ( | LNG-IUD for 2 years | 96% (90/94) after 1 year; 90% (94/105) after 2 years; 88/96 (92%) for EH without atypia and 6/9 (67%) for EH with atypia | 1 case of EC | – |
| Gallos [ | 2013 | CS | 344 | Complex EH without atypia or EH with atypia | Oral progestins ( | 95% (237/250) for LNG-IUD vs. 84% (79/94) for oral progestins (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.4–6.8) | 8 cases of EC | Hysterectomy rates were 55/250 (22%) for LNG-IUD vs. 35/94 (37%) for oral progestins |
| Gallos [ | 2013 | CS | 219 | Complex EH without atypia or EH with atypia who achieved CR after progestin treatment | Oral progestins or LNG-IUD | – | 21/153 (14%) for LNG-IUD vs. 20/66 (30%) for oral progestin; 2 cases of EC | Hysterectomy rates lower for LNG-IUD (20% vs. 32%) |
| Cholakian [ | 2016 | CS | 60 | EH with atypia ( | MGA ( | – | – | Median weight change greater for MGA vs. LNG-IUD (+ 2.9 vs. + 0.05 kg); BMI < 35 gained more weight vs. BMI ≥ 35 (+ 2.3 vs. − 0.7 kg/month); for BMI ≥ 35, MGA had more weight gain than LNG-IUD (+ 2.2 vs. − 5.4 kg) |
| Kim [ | 2016 | CS | 75 | EH without atypia ( | LNG-IUD for 12 months | 95% (36/38) after 12 months | 1 case with residual EH | – |
| Marnach [ | 2017 | CS | 94 | Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia | LNG-IUD | 87% (no atypia); 62% (with atypia); 22% (adenocarcinoma) | – | – |
| Haoula [ | 2011 | CS | 51 | EH without atypia ( | LNG-IUD for 12 months | 97% (31/32) for EH without atypia after 24 months; 84% (16/19) for atypical EH | 2 cases of persistence | – |
| Kim [ | 2013 | CS | 16 | EC G1, < 2 cm | LNG-IUD + oral MPA (500 mg/day) for 3 months | 88% (14/16); median time to CR 9.8 months | No case of progression | No treatment-related complications |
| Pooled analysis | CS ( | 1087 | – | – | LNG-IUD with higher rates vs. oral progestins in 7 studies | Progression to EC lower with LNG-IUD in 2 studies; regression rates dose-dependent with oral progestins in 1 study | Hysterectomy rates lower for LNG-IUD in 2 studies; more weight gain for MPA/MGA than LNG-IUD in 1 study |
Patient characteristics and results of randomized controlled trials analyzing the efficacy of progestin treatment in women with EH
| Author | Year | Study type | Number of patients | Population characteristics | Intervention | Regression of EH | Persistence/pro-gression of EH | Side effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dolapcioglu [ | 2013 | RCT | 104 | simple EH ( | Oral MPA (10 mg/day; | 64% (MPA) vs. 100% (LNG-IUD) after 6 months | 22/51 (43%) for MPA vs. 4/51 (8%) for LNG-IUD after 2 years; 50% (MPA) vs. 84% (LNG-IUD) after 3 months | – |
| Orbo [ | 2008 | RCT | 258 | EH without further differentiation | LNG-IUD vs. oral progestin, observation for 6 months; follow-up for 24 months | LNG-IUD more effective vs. oral progestins and observation after 6 months ( | No case of EC during follow-up (56 to 108 months) | – |
| Ismail [ | 2013 | RCT | 90 | EH without atypia | Cyclical MPA 10 mg/day vs. cyclical NETA 15 mg/day vs. LNG-IUD for 6 months | 36.6% vs. 40% vs. 66.7% | No case of EC | – |
| Karimi-Zarchi [ | 2013 | RCT | 40 | EH without atypia | Cyclical MPA 20 mg/day vs. LNG-IUD for 3 months | LNG-IUD more effective ( | – | Better satisfaction; less side effects with LNG-IUD |
| El-Behery [ | 2015 | RCT | 138 | EH without further differentiation; diagnosed by ultrasound | Oral dydrogesterone vs. LNG-IUD for 6 months | LNG-IUD more effective (96% vs. 80%) | Recurrence rate lower with LNG-IUD (0% vs. 12%) | Patient satisfaction better with LNG-IUD despite more spotting |
| Orbo [ | 2016 | RCT | 153 | EH without further differentiation | LNG-IUD vs. oral progestin vs. observation for 6 months; follow-up for 24 months | – | Histological recurrence in 55/135 (41%) with CR; Recurrence rates similar in three therapy groups; recurrence dependent on menopausal status ( | – |
| – | RCT ( | 783 | – | – | LNG-IUD with higher rates vs. oral progestins in all studies | LNG-IUD with lower rates of persistence/recurrence in 2 studies | Less side effects with LNG-IUD in 1 study; better patient satisfaction in 2 studies |