Home > Journals > Minerva Medica > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Medica 2020 Nov 18

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

 

Minerva Medica 2020 Nov 18

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4806.20.07072-X

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Fertility-sparing management for endometrial cancer: review of literature

Simone GARZON 1 , Stefano UCCELLA 2, Pier Carlo ZORZATO 2, Mariachiara BOSCO 2, Massimo FRANCHI 2, Vladimir STUDENT 1, Andrea MARIANI 1

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, AOUI Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy


PDF


INTRODUCTION: Primary surgery is effective in low-risk EC. However, in young women, this approach compromises fertility. Therefore, fertility-sparing management in the case of atypical endometrial hyperplasia, or grade 1 endometrial cancer (EC) limited to the endometrium can be considered.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a literature review to identify studies involving women with endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia who underwent fertility-sparing management. We conducted multiple bibliographic databases research between their inception to May 2020.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Oral therapy with medroxyprogesterone acetate and megestrol acetate is recommended based on extensive experience, although without consensus on dosages and treatment length. The pooled complete response rate, recurrence rate, and pregnancy rate of EC were 76.3%, 30.7%, and 52.1%, respectively. Endometrial hyperplasia was associated with better outcomes. LNG-IUSs appears an alternative treatment, particularly in patients who do not tolerate oral therapy. In a randomized controlled trial, megestrol acetate plus Metformin guaranteed an earlier complete response rate than megestrol acetate alone for endometrial hyperplasia. Hysteroscopic resection followed by progestogens is associated with a higher complete response rate, live birth rate, and lower recurrence rate than oral progestogens alone. Pooled complete response, recurrence, and live birth rates were 98.1%, 4.8%, and 52.6%.
CONCLUSIONS: Fertility preservation appears feasible in young patients with grade 1 EC limited to the endometrium or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Progestins are the mainstay of such management. The addition of Metformin and hysteroscopic resection seems to provide some improvements. However, fertility preservation is not the standard approach for staging and treatment, potentially worsening oncologic outcomes.


KEY WORDS: Endometrial cancer; Endometrial hyperplasia; Fertility sparing; Live birth; Response rate

top of page