UNASSIGNED: The objective of this network meta-analysis is to systematically compare the efficacy of diverse progestin-based combination regimens in treating patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. The primary goal is to discern the optimal combination treatment regimen through a comprehensive examination of their respective effectiveness.
UNASSIGNED: We systematically searched four prominent databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for randomized controlled trials addressing the efficacy of progestins or progestin combinations in the treatment of patients with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. The search spanned from the inception of these databases to December 2023. Key outcome indicators encompassed survival indices, criteria for assessing efficacy, as well as pregnancy and relapse rate. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024496311).
UNASSIGNED: From the 1,558 articles initially retrieved, we included 27 studies involving a total of 5,323 subjects in our analysis. The results of the network meta-analysis revealed that the mTOR inhibitor+megestrol acetate (MA)+tamoxifen regimen secured the top rank in maintaining stable disease (SD) (SUCRA=73.4%) and extending progression-free survival (PFS) (SUCRA=72.4%). Additionally, the progestin combined with tamoxifen regimen claimed the leading position in enhancing the partial response (PR) (SUCRA=75.2%) and prolonging overall survival (OS) (SUCRA=80%). The LNG-IUS-based dual progestin regimen emerged as the frontrunner in improving the complete response (CR) (SUCRA=98.7%), objective response rate (ORR) (SUCRA=99.1%), pregnancy rate (SUCRA=83.7%), and mitigating progression (SUCRA=8.0%) and relapse rate (SUCRA=47.4%). In terms of safety, The LNG-IUS-based dual progestin regimen had the lowest likelihood of adverse events (SUCRA=4.2%), while the mTOR inhibitor regimen (SUCRA=89.2%) and mTOR inbitor+MA+tamoxifen regimen (SUCRA=88.4%) had the highest likelihood of adverse events.
UNASSIGNED: Patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia exhibited the most favorable prognosis when undergoing progestin combination therapy that included tamoxifen, mTOR inhibitor, or LNG-IUS. Notably, among these options, the LNG-IUS-based dual progestin regimen emerged as particularly promising for potential application.
UNASSIGNED: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024496311.

Fertility-sparing treatments have become important for young women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) or endometrial carcinoma (EC) who wish to preserve their reproductive potential. Evidence indicates a strong relationship between weight and EC and the effect of weight loss on reducing the risk of EC. We report the case of a young obese woman with a body mass index (BMI) of 46.6 kg/m2, diagnosed with grade 2 endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma, who underwent a combined fertility-sparing treatment with hysteroscopic resection followed by insertion of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system. After twelve months of failure to achieve a complete response, bariatric surgery was proposed to lose weight and improve the response to treatment. Histologic regression was achieved three months after surgery, with a weight loss of 30 kg and fifteen months after combined treatment of endometrial cancer. We reviewed the literature to summarize the evidence on the role of bariatric surgery and weight loss in modifying the oncologic and reproductive outcomes of women undergoing fertility-sparing treatment for atypical endometrial lesions.

The incidence of two synchronous carcinomas originating from the uterine corpus and uterine cervix, both endometrioid subtypes, is exceedingly rare. Herein, we presented synchronous early stage G1 adenocarcinoma of the uterine corpus with cervical G2 endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Although both neoplasms displayed the same histological subtype, they differed significantly according to the histological grading or clinical stage of the disease. Finally, it is worth emphasizing that both tumors were preceded by different precancerous lesions, atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and foci of endometriosis localized within the uterine cervix. Although AEH is a well-known precancerous condition of endometrioid carcinoma, the mechanisms resulting in the malignant transformation of endometriosis foci to the cervical endometrioid carcinoma are still a matter of controversy. We briefly summarized the impact of different precancerous lesions on the development of synchronous female genital tract neoplasms with the same histotype.

Endometrial premalignancies are among the common reasons for outpatient gynecology visits among women in reproductive ages. Due to the continued increase in global obesity incidence among them, endometrial malignancies are expected to become even further prevalent. Hence, fertility-sparing interventions are essential and needed. In this semi-systematic literature review, we aimed to investigate the role of hysteroscopy in fertility preservation in endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Our secondary goal is to analyze the pregnancy outcomes following fertility preservation.
We conducted a computed search in PubMed. We included original research articles including hysteroscopic interventions in pre-menopausal patients with endometrial malignancies and premalignancies who underwent fertility-preserving treatments. We collected data on medical treatment, response, pregnancy outcomes, and hysteroscopy.
Of the query results (n = 364), our final analysis included 24 studies. Overall, 1186 patients with endometrial premalignancies and endometrial cancer (EC) were included. More than half of the studies were retrospective design. They included almost ten different forms of progestins. Of the reported pregnancies (n = 392), the overall pregnancy rate was 33.1%. The majority of the studies used operative hysteroscopy (87.5%). Only three (12.5%) reported their hysteroscopy technique in detail. Although more than half of the studies did not provide any information on adverse effects due to hysteroscopy, there were no serious adverse effects among the reported ones.
Hysteroscopic resection may increase the success rate of fertility-preserving treatment of EC and atypical endometrial hyperplasia. The clinical significance of the theoretical concern of the dissemination of cancer is not known. Standardization of the use of hysteroscopy in fertility-preserving treatment is needed.

This study aimed to evaluate the risk of endometrial carcinoma and atypical endometrial hyperplasia in asymptomatic postmenopausal women concerning the endometrial thickness measured by stratified threshold categories used for performing subsequent endometrial sampling and histologic evaluation.
MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, conference proceedings, and international controlled trials registries were searched without temporal, geographic, or language restrictions.
Studies were selected if they had a crossover design evaluating the risk of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma in postmenopausal asymptomatic women and calculated the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography thresholds (at least 3.0 mm) confirmed by histopathologic diagnosis.
This was a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Synthesizing Evidence from Diagnostic Accuracy Tests guidelines. Endometrial thickness thresholds were grouped as follows: from 3.0 to 5.9 mm; between 6.0 and 9.9 mm; between 10.0 and 13.9 mm; and ≥14.0 mm. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Publication bias was quantified using the Deek funnel plot test. Coprimary outcomes were the risk of atypical endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial carcinoma according to the endometrial thickness and diagnostic accuracy of each threshold group.
A total of 18 studies provided the data of 10,334 women who were all included in the final analysis. Overall, at an endometrial thickness threshold of at least 3.0 mm, the risk of atypical endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial carcinoma was increased 3-fold relative to women below the cutoff (relative risk, 3.77; 95% confidence interval, 2.26-6.32; I2=74%). Similar degrees of risk were reported for thresholds between 3.0 and 5.9 mm (relative risk, 5.08; 95% confidence interval, 2.26-11.41; I2=0%), 6.0 and 9.9 mm (relative risk, 4.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-11.23; I2=0%), 10.0 and 13.9 mm (relative risk, 4.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-10.87; I2=86%), and ≥14.0 mm (relative risk, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-6.16; I2=78%) with no significant difference among subgroups (P=.885). Regarding diagnostic accuracy, the pooled sensitivity decreased from thresholds below 5.9 mm (relative risk, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.85) to above 14.0 mm (relative risk, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.40). Furthermore, the specificity increased from 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.78) for endometrial thickness between 3.0 and 5.9 mm to 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.94) when the endometrial thickness is ≥14.0 mm. For 3.0 to 5.9 mm and 10.0 to 13.9 mm thresholds, the highest diagnostic odds ratios of 10 (95% confidence interval, 3-41) and 11 (95% confidence interval, 2-49), with areas under the curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.84) and 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.86), respectively, were retrieved. The summary point analysis revealed that the 3.0 to 5.9 mm cutoff point was placed higher in the summary receiver operator curve space than the other subgroups, indicating increased endometrial carcinoma or atypical endometrial hyperplasia diagnosis using these cutoffs.
Both low and high endometrial thickness thresholds in postmenopausal asymptomatic women seem equally effective in detecting endometrial carcinoma and atypical endometrial hyperplasia. However, although using a 3.0 to 5.9 mm cutoff results in a lower specificity, the offsetting improvement in sensitivity may justify using this cutoff for further endometrial evaluation in patients with suspected endometrial malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) is a common precancerous lesion of endometrial carcinoma (EC). The risk factors for AEH and EC directly or indirectly related to estrogen exposure include early menarche, nulliparity, polycystic ovarian syndrome, diabetes, and obesity. Both AEH and EC rarely occur in young patients (< 40-years-old), who may desire to maintain their fertility. Evaluating the cancer risk of AEH patients is helpful for the determination of therapeutic plans.
METHODS: We report a rare case of AEH in a 35-year-old woman who presented to the Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital with a large mass in the uterus. She married at 20-years-old, and had been married for more than 15 years to date. Several characteristics of this patient were observed, including nulliparity, limited sexual activity (intercourse 1-2 times a year) in recent years, and irregular vaginal bleeding for 2 years. Gynecological examination revealed an enlarged uterus, similar to the uterus size in the fourth month of pregnancy, and the uterine wall was relatively hard. Curettage was performed based on transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging results. Findings from the pathological examination were typical for AEH. The patient was cured after treatment with the standard therapy of high-dose progesterone.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intrauterine lumps that may be malignant, a pathological report should be obtained.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing incidence of endometrial cancer and late motherhood enhance conservative management in clinical practice. Although different approaches to fertility-sparing treatment are possible, it is still unknown which patients will benefit more from systemic or local treatment. Aim of this paper is to analyze the effectiveness of different methods of conservative management and obstetric outcomes in patients with early endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia.
METHODS: 30 patients (10 with atypical endometrial hyperplasia, 20 with endometrial cancer) treated conservatively were included to retrospective analysis. 24 patients receiving progestins were divided into 2 groups according to the dose (low and high dose); 6 patients were treated with levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine device. Effectiveness of therapy (complete, partial or absent) and obstetric outcomes (number of pregnancies and live births) were assessed. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase) were searched for articles according to criteria: 1) fertility-sparing treatment of endometrial cancer/atypical endometrial hyperplasia in patients of reproductive age, 2) assessment of pregnancy/obstetric results. The risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series.
RESULTS: Complete and partial remission were achieved in 21 and 3 patients, respectively. 6 patients did not respond to treatment. Relapse was diagnosed in 6 patients. Probability of complete remission according to low-, high-dose regimen and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device were 55.6% (46.5%-64.7%), 73.3% (65.2%-81.4%) and 83.3% (76.5%-90.1%) respectively. 4 patients get pregnant and 3 of them born children. 25 studies (21 retrospective, 4 prospective) with 812 participants were included in the systematic review. The most studied was progestin based treatment. Complete and partial response to fertility-sparing management was diagnosed in 634 and 38 patients, respectively. Relapse was diagnosed in 170 patients. Median times of follow-up range from 17 (1-45) to 98 (35-176) months. The total number of pregnancies and live births were 352 and 246, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Fertility-sparing treatment is a safe method of management in young women with endometrial cancer/atypical endometrial hyperplasia. While the main goal of conservative management is preserving the possibility of having children, only a small number of women will become pregnant and give birth.

Endometrial cancer is the fifth most common cancer in women and atypical endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous lesion. Obesity is an important risk factor for endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma and endometrial hyperplasia. Progesterone is recommended as first-line treatment in endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia in women who wish to preserve fertility, but optimal treatment schedules have not been defined. Metformin or bariatric surgery may also be useful in these women. The effectiveness and safety of fertility-preserving treatments being used for women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia and stage IA grade 1 endometrial cancer is unclear. Therefore, the systematic review aims to determine this point.
We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trial registers, conference proceedings, abstracts, cooperative trial groups and reference lists. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare fertility-preserving therapy including orally administered progesterone versus a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (IUS), metformin, other pharmacological interventions or bariatric surgery, and any of these interventions with womb-removing surgery. Quasi-randomised trials, non-randomised trials and cohort studies will be included. Two review authors will independently assess study eligibility and risk of bias and extract data. The primary outcomes are complete pathologic response and live birth rate. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, progression-free survival, pregnancy rate, need for hysterectomy, adverse events, psychological symptoms and quality of life.
This review aims to clarify the effectiveness and risks of fertility-preserving treatments, including complete pathologic response rate, live birth rates, need for surgical treatment, adverse events, psychological symptoms and quality of life. The broad scope of the review includes the use of progesterone, metformin to reverse insulin resistance, and bariatric surgery or operative hysteroscopy.
The results may help to determine the optimal fertility-sparing treatment in endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia.
Prospero 2019 number CRD42019145991.

Endometrial hyperplasia may be either a benign proliferation or a premalignant lesion. In order to differentiate these two conditions, two possible histologic classifications can be used: the World Health Organization (WHO) classification and the endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) classification. The 2017 European Society of Gynaecological Oncology guidelines recommend the use of immunohistochemistry for tumor suppressor protein phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) to improve the differential diagnosis. Nonetheless, its diagnostic accuracy has never been defined. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of immunohistochemistry for PTEN in the differential diagnosis between benign and premalignant endometrial hyperplasia.
Electronic databases were searched from their inception to May 2018 for studies assessing immunohistochemical expression of PTEN in endometrial hyperplasia specimens. PTEN status (\"loss\" or \"presence\") was the index test; histological diagnosis (\"precancer\" or \"benign\") was the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) on summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated (95% CI), with a subgroup analysis based on the histologic classification adopted (WHO vs EIN).
Twenty-seven observational studies with 1736 cases of endometrial hyperplasia were included. Pooled estimates showed low diagnostic accuracy: sensitivity 54% (95% CI 50%-59%), specificity 66% (63%-69%), LR+ 1.55 (1.29-1.87), LR- 0.72 (0.62-0.83), DOR 3.56 (2.02-6.28), AUC 0.657. When the WHO subgroup was compared with the EIN subgroup, higher accuracy (AUC 0.694 vs. 0.621), and higher heterogeneity in all analyses, were observed.
Immunohistochemistry for PTEN showed low diagnostic usefulness in the differential diagnosis between benign and premalignant endometrial hyperplasia. In the absence of further evidence, the recommendation about its use should be reconsidered.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist after endometrial resection in women suffering early stage endometrial carcinoma (EC) and/or endometrial intra-epithelial neoplasia (EIN). Design: A retrospective review of clinical files between January 1999 and December 2016. Setting: University hospital. Patients: Eighteen women younger than 41 years with grade 1 endometrial carcinoma (G1EC) and/or Endometrial intra-epithelial neoplasia (EIN).
METHODS: All patients received GnRH agonist for 3 months after an endometrial resection combined with a laparoscopy to exclude concomitant ovarian tumor and/or other extra-uterine disease. The patient underwent a follow-up of 3 months interval with endometrial sampling by hysteroscopy. Main Outcome Measure(s): The recurrence rate and the pregnancy rate after fertility sparing treatment. Results: We identified 9 patients with EIN (50%), 7 patients with G1EC (38.9%), 1 with combined histology (5.5%), and 1 with G2EC (5.5%). After a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 12 patients conserved their uterus (66.7%), and 8 (53.3%) patients were pregnant with a total of 14 pregnancies among those who tried to become pregnant. We observed a complete response rate in 12 patients (66.7%) but 3 of these patients relapsed (25%). We also found a stable disease in 6 patients (33.3%). Conclusions: Compared with other fertility sparing treatments, GnRH agonist after surgery is an effective fertility-sparing strategy for women with EIN and/or G1EC. We recommend hysterectomy once a family has been completed even if the literature does not clearly lead to radical surgery.