Comparison of fertility-sparing treatments in patients with early endometrial cancer and atypical complex hyperplasia: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Jing Wei, Weiyuan Zhang, Limin Feng, Wanli Gao, Jing Wei, Weiyuan Zhang, Limin Feng, Wanli Gao

Abstract

Background: There are some fertility-sparing treatments in patients with early endometrial cancer (EEC) or atypical complex hyperplasia (ACH), and the objective is to compare them by evaluating the oncologic and reproductive outcomes.

Methods: We searched the published literature using Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases up to January 3, 2017, with various combinations of keywords fertility-sparing treatments, progesterone, progestin, intrauterine devices, early endometrial cancer, and atypical complex hyperplasia. The primary endpoint is the complete response (CR) rate, and the secondary endpoints are the partial response (PR) rate, relapse rate (RR), pregnancy rate, and live birth rate.

Results: Twenty-eight studies containing 1038 women with EEC or ACH were included for review and meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that women with EEC or ACH managed with progestin had a pooled CR rate of 71% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-77%). The pooled pregnancy outcomes showed that 34% of women taking progestin treatment for EEC or ACH became pregnant (95% CI: 30-38%); however, only 20% of them delivered live newborns. The pooled CR rate for women using intrauterine device (IUD) was 76% (95% CI: 67-83%), and pooled RR was 9% (95% CI: 5-17%). The pregnancy rate for women whom underwent IUD was 18% (95% CI: 7-37%), and 14% of them delivered live newborns. In patients using progestin plus IUD, the pooled CR rate was 87% (95% CI: 75-93%); among those patients, 40% became pregnant (95% CI: 20-63%), and 35% delivered live newborns. There is no publication bias for the CR rate.

Conclusion: For patients with EEC and ACH, treatments with progestin, with or without IUD, or IUD alone can reach good CR rate; however, the pregnancy outcomes might be worse in patients treated with IUD alone. Further randomized-controlled studies are warranted to find out a better solution.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram of study selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Meta-analysis of the complete response rate to progestin.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Meta-analysis of the complete response rate to intrauterine device and intrauterine device plus progestin.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Meta-analysis of the complete response rate between patients treated with progestin and intrauterine device.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Funnel plots for the complete response rate showing the distribution of published study outcomes.

References

    1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:87–108.
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:7–30.
    1. Sherman ME. Theories of endometrial carcinogenesis: a multidisciplinary approach. Mod Pathol 2000;13:295–308.
    1. Brownfoot FC, Hickey M, Ang WC, et al. Complex atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium: differences in outcome following conservative management of pre- and postmenopausal women. Reprod Sci 2014;21:1244–8.
    1. Butterfield N, Smith JR. Role of imaging in fertility-sparing treatment of gynecologic malignancies. Radiographics 2016;36:2214–33.
    1. Eskander RN, Randall LM, Berman ML, et al. Fertility preserving options in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:103–10.
    1. Leblanc E, Narducci F, Ferron G, et al. Indications and teaching of fertility preservation in the surgical management of gynecologic malignancies: European perspective. Gynecol Oncol 2009;1142 suppl:S32–6.
    1. Gunderson CC, Fader AN, Carson KA, et al. Oncologic and Reproductive outcomes with progestin therapy in women with endometrial hyperplasia and grade 1 adenocarcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:477–82.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uterine Neoplasm (Version 1. 2017). . Accessed March 3, 2017.
    1. Burke WM, Orr J, Leitao M, et al. SGO Clinical Practice Endometrial Cancer Working Group. Endometrial cancer: a review and current management strategies: part II. Gynecol Oncol 2014;134:393–402.
    1. Banno K, Kisu I, Yanokura M, et al. Progestin therapy for endometrial cancer: the potential of fourth-generation progestin (review). Int J Oncol 2012;40:1755–62.
    1. Shimizu Y, Takeuchi T, Mizuguchi K, et al. Dienogest, a synthetic progestin, inhibits the proliferation of immortalized human endometrialepithelial cells with suppression of cyclin D1 gene expression. Mol Hum Reprod 2009;15:693–701.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Int Med 2009;151:W65–94.
    1. Moga C, Guo B, Schopflocher D, et al. Development of a Quality Appraisal Tool for Case Series Studies Using a Modified Delphi Technique. Edmonton AB: Institute of Health Economics; 2012.
    1. Inoue O, Hamatani T, Susumu N, et al. Factors affecting pregnancy outcomes in young women treated with fertility-preserving therapy for well-differentiated endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2016;14:2.
    1. Mitsuhashi A, Sato Y, Kiyokawa T, et al. Phase II study of medroxyprogesterone acetate plus metformin as a fertility-sparing treatment for atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer. Ann Oncol 2016;27:262–6.
    1. van Gent MDJM, Nicolae-Cristea AR, de Kroon CD, et al. Exploring morphologic and molecular aspects of endometrial cancer under progesterone treatment in the context of fertility preservation. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016;26:483–90.
    1. Emarh M. Cyclic versus continuous medroxyprogesterone acetate for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia: a 2-year observational study. Arch Gynecol Obs 2015;292:133.
    1. Chen M, Jin Y, Li Y, et al. Oncologic and reproductive outcomes after fertility-sparing management with oral progestin for women with complex endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2016;132:34–8.
    1. Ohyagi-Hara C, Sawada K, Aki I, et al. Efficacies and pregnant outcomes of fertility-sparing treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate for endometrioid adenocarcinoma and complex atypical hyperplasia: our experience and a review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;291:151–7.
    1. Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes after fertility-sparing management using oral progestin for young women with endometrial cancer (KGOG 2002). Eur J Cancer 2013;49:868–74.
    1. Shobeiri MJ, Gharabagh PM, Esmaeili H, et al. Fertility sparing treatment in young patients with early endometrial adenocarcinoma. Pakistan J Med Sci 2013;29:651–5.
    1. Koskas M, Azria E, Walker F, et al. Progestin treatment of atypical hyperplasia and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma of the endometrium to preserve fertility. Anticancer Res 2012;32:1037–43.
    1. Park H, Seok JM, Yoon BS, et al. Effectiveness of high-dose progestin and long-term outcomes in young women with early-stage, well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma of uterine endometrium. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;285:473–8.
    1. Hahn HS, Yoon SG, Hong JS, et al. Conservative treatment with progestin and pregnancy outcomes in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009;19:1068–73.
    1. Signorelli M, Caspani G, Bonazzi C, et al. Fertility-sparing treatment in young women with endometrial cancer or atypical complex hyperplasia: a prospective single-institution experience of 21 cases. BJOG 2009;116:114–8.
    1. Yu M, Yang JX, Wu M, et al. Fertility-preserving treatment in young women with well-differentiated endometrial carcinoma and severe atypical hyperplasia of endometrium. Fertil Steril 2009;92:2122–4.
    1. Minaguchi T, Nakagawa S, Takazawa Y, et al. Combined phospho-Akt and PTEN expressions associated with post-treatment hysterectomy after conservative progestin therapy in complex atypical hyperplasia and stage Ia, G1 adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Cancer Lett 2007;248:112–22.
    1. Ushijima K, Yahata H, Yoshikawa H, et al. Multicenter phase II study of fertility-sparing treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate for endometrial carcinoma and atypical hyperplasia in young women. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2798–803.
    1. Yamazawa K, Hirai M, Fujito A, et al. Fertility-preserving treatment with progestin, and pathological criteria to predict responses, in young women with endometrial cancer. Hum Reprod 2007;22:1953–8.
    1. Niwa K, Tagami K, Lian Z, et al. Outcome of fertility-preserving treatment in young women with endometrial carcinomas. BJOG 2005;112:317–20.
    1. Ota T, Yoshida M, Kimura MKK. Clinicopathologic study of uterine endometrial carcinoma in young women aged 40 years and younger. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005;15:657–62.
    1. Kaku T, Yoshikawa H, Tsuda H, et al. Conservative therapy for adenocarcinoma and atypical endometrial hyperplasia of the endometrium in young women: central pathologic review and treatment outcome. Cancer Lett 2001;167:39–48.
    1. Kim YB, Holschneider CH, Ghosh K, et al. Progestin alone as primary treatment of endometrial carcinoma in premenopausal women. Report of seven cases and review of the literature. Cancer 1997;79:320–7.
    1. Pronin SM, Novikova OV, Andreeva JY, et al. Fertility-sparing treatment of early endometrial cancer and complex atypical hyperplasia in young women of childbearing potential. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015;25:1010–4.
    1. Minig L, Franchi D, Boveri S, et al. Progestin intrauterine device and GnRH analogue for uterus-sparing treatment of endometrial precancers and well-differentiated early endometrial carcinoma in young women. Ann Oncol 2011;22:643–9.
    1. Kim MK, Seong SJ, Kim YS, et al. Combined medroxyprogesterone acetate/levonorgestrel-intrauterine system treatment in young women with early-stage endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209: 358.e1-4.
    1. Cade TJ, Quinn MA, Rome RM, et al. Long-term outcomes after progestogen treatment for early endometrial cancer. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;53:566–70.
    1. Cade T, Quinn M, Rome R, et al. Progestogen treatment options for early endometrial cancer. BJOG 2010;117:879–83.
    1. Perri T, Korach J, Gotlieb WH, et al. Prolonged conservative treatment of endometrial cancer patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011;21:72–8.
    1. Hubbs JL, Saig RM, Abaid LN, et al. Systemic and local hormone therapy for endometrial hyperplasia and early adenocarcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:1172–80.
    1. Laurelli G, Di Vagno G, Scaffa C, et al. Conservative treatment of early endometrial cancer: preliminary results of a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol 2011;120:43–6.
    1. Gallos ID, Yap J, Rajkhowa M, et al. Regression, relapse, and live birth rates with fertility-sparing therapy for endometrial cancer and atypical complex endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:266e1–2.
    1. Koskas M, Uzan J, Luton D, et al. Prognostic factors of oncologic and reproductive outcomes in fertility-sparing management of endometrial atypical hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2014;101:785–94.
    1. Carneiro MM, Lamaita RM, Ferreira MCF, et al. Safe fertility-preserving management in endometrial cancer: is it feasible? Review of the literature. J Gynecol Surg 2012;28:399–404.
    1. Han MS, Lee HJ, Park SJ, et al. The effect of metformin on the recurrence of colorectal adenoma in diabetic patients with previous colorectal adenoma. Int J Colorectal Dis 2017;32:1223–6.
    1. Hall C, Stone RL, Gehlot A, et al. Use of metformin in obese women with type i endometrial cancer is associated with a reduced incidence of cancer recurrence. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016;26:313–7.
    1. Ko EM, Walter P, Jackson A, et al. Metformin is associated with improved survival in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014;132:438–42.
    1. Chan JL, Letourneau J, Salem W, et al. Regret around fertility choices is decreased with pre-treatment counseling in gynecologic cancer patients. J Cancer Surviv 2016;11:1–6.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa