V.2 Use of levonorgestrel intrauterine device for prevention of endometrial changes induced by tamoxifen

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for endometrial hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

In the absence of treatment, endometrial hyperplasia (EH) can progress to endometrial cancer, particularly in the presence of histologic nuclear atypia. The development of EH results from exposure of the endometrium to oestrogen unopposed by progesterone. Oral progestogens have been used as treatment for EH without atypia, and in some cases of EH with atypia in women who wish to preserve fertility or who cannot tolerate surgery. EH without atypia is associated with a low risk of progression to atypia and cancer; EH with atypia is where the cells are structurally abnormal, and has a higher risk of developing cancer. Oral progestogen is not always effective at reversing the hyperplasia, can be associated with side effects, and depends on patient adherence. The levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is an alternative method of administration of progestogen and may have some advantages over non-intrauterine progestogens.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in women with endometrial hyperplasia (EH) with or without atypia compared to medical treatment with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, and conference proceedings of 10 relevant organisations. We handsearched references in relevant published studies. We also searched ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, and other trial registries. We performed the final search in May 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials of women with a histological diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia with or without atypia comparing LNG-IUS with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were regression of EH and adverse effects associated with the LNG-IUS device (such as pelvic inflammatory disease, device expulsion, uterine perforation) when compared to treatment with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment. Secondary outcomes included hysterectomy, hormone-related adverse effects (such as bleeding/spotting, pelvic pain, breast tenderness, ovarian cysts, weight gain, acne), withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects, satisfaction with treatment, and cost or resource use. We rated the overall quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs (1657 women aged 22 to 75 years) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies had insufficient data for meta-analysis, thus the quantitative analysis included 11 RCTs. All trials evaluated treatment duration of six months or less. The evidence ranged from very low to moderate quality: the main limitations were risk of bias (associated with lack of blinding and poor reporting of study methods), inconsistency and imprecision. LNG-IUS versus non-intrauterine progestogens Primary outcomes Regression of endometrial hyperplasia The LNG-IUS probably improves regression of EH compared with non-intrauterine progestogens at short-term follow-up (up to six months) (OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.10 to 4.13; I² = 0%; 10 RCTs, 1108 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if regression of EH following treatment with a non-intrauterine progestogen is assumed to be 72%, regression of EH following treatment with LNG-IUS would be between 85% and 92%. Regression of EH may be improved by LNG-IUS compared with non-intrauterine progestogens at long-term follow-up (12 months) (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.75 to 8.23; 1 RCT, 138 participants; low-quality evidence), Adverse effects associated with LNG-IUS There was insufficient evidence to determine device-related adverse effects; only one study reported on expulsion with insufficient data for analysis. Secondary outcomes The LNG-IUS may be associated with fewer hysterectomies (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.46; I² = 19%; 4 RCTs, 452 participants; low-quality evidence), fewer withdrawals from treatment due to hormone-related adverse effects (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, 360 participants; low-quality evidence) and improved patient satisfaction with treatment (OR 5.28, 95% CI 2.51 to 11.10; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 202 participants; very low-quality evidence) compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. The LNG-IUS may be associated with more bleeding/spotting (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.43; I² = 78%; 3 RCTs, 428 participants) and less nausea (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, 428 participants) compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. Data from single trials for mood swings and fatigue had a similar direction of effect as for bleeding/spotting, nausea and weight gain. There was insufficient evidence to determine cost or resource use. LNG-IUS versus no treatment Regression of endometrial hyperplasia One study demonstrated that the LNG-IUS is associated with regression of EH without atypia (OR 78.41, 95% CI 22.86 to 268.97; I² = 0%; 1 RCT, 190 participants; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This study did not report on any other review outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that treatment with LNG-IUS used for three to six months is probably more effective than non-intrauterine progestogens at reversing EH in the short term (up to six months) and long term (up to two years). Adverse effects (device-related and hormone-related) were poorly and incompletely reported across studies. Very low quality to low-quality evidence suggests the LNG-IUS may reduce the risk of hysterectomy, and may be associated with more bleeding/spotting, less nausea, less withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects, and increased satisfaction with treatment, compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions regarding device-related adverse effects, or cost or resource use.

Long-term conservative therapy for endometrial adenocarcinoma in young women

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of long-term conservative therapy with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) for endometrial carcinoma in young patients who had experienced failure after initial therapy or relapse, we reviewed the clinical and pathologic records of eight patients diagnosed with well-differentiated endometrial adenocarcinoma without myometrial invasion who were treated with MPA for over 6 months because of treatment failure or relapse.

RESULTS

The average duration of MPA treatment was 22 months. All patients were followed-up for a mean of 76.5 months. Seven patients responded to initial MPA treatment within a period of 14 months (mean, 7.9 months). All these patients experienced relapse and the mean time to relapse was 11.6 months (range, 4-33 months). All six patients with relapse were treated with additional treatments of MPA, and all but one responded to this treatment within a period of 16 months (mean, 8.0 months). Six patients ultimately underwent hysterectomy. All presented well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinomas without extrauterine disease. Three became pregnant and two delivered full-term normal infants. No patient died of the disease.

CONCLUSION

Although lesions are expected to disappear with prolonged MPA treatment, this form of progestin therapy is hazardous because recurrence occurs frequently. Only strictly selected patients should therefore be indicated for long-term MPA treatment and careful evaluation before and after treatment should be performed.

Development of a miniature, low-dose, frameless intrauterine levonorgestrel-releasing system for contraception and treatment: a review of initial clinical experience

A low-dose levonorgestrel (LNG)-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) (FibroPlant) has been clinically developed since 1997 for endometrial suppression during hormone replacement therapy in peri- and postmenopausal women, for the treatment of menorrhagia in women with normal uteri or with uterine fibroids, for contraception, for the treatment of endometrial hyperplasia, and for alleviating primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. Results of preliminary studies confirm the promising nature of this all-round drug delivery system. The low dose of LNG released accounts for the low hormonal side-effect rate and virtual absence of amenorrhoea in premenopausal women. The system has not yet been evaluated in tamoxifen users (to protect the endometrium), or in women with rectovaginal endometriosis. However, early indications suggest that the system will also be suitable for these indications. The frameless drug delivery support of this LNG-releasing IUS has been optimized to reduce the size of the foreign body and to maximize tolerance and continuation of use while simultaneously providing for the maximum duration of action.