Oral Progestogens Versus Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System for Treatment of Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Metformin and progestins in women with atypical hyperplasia or endometrial cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess metformin's effectiveness in adding it to progestin-based hormone therapy for treating atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and early endometrial cancer (EEC).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines (registration number CRD42023399094). We searched databases for studies up to March 2023, including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials in English.

RESULTS

Out of 280 studies, 9 studies (1104 patients) were eligible. A total of 408 patients were allocated to receive metformin, and 696 patients entered the control group. Primary analysis focused on evaluating the CR showed a significant difference in patients with AEH treated with metformin (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.20, p = 0.02). Relapse rate (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.33-1.17, p = 0.14) was also evaluated. Secondary analysis indicated higher pregnancy rates (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.04-1.57, p = 0.02) with no significant difference in live birth rates (RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.29-1.10, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Combined therapy is effective. Metformin shows superiority to the standard regimen in achieving better CR rate in patients with AEH and benefits pregnancy rates but not recurrence or live birth rates. Therefore, the ideal fertility-sparing treatment for EC has not yet been determined and further clinical trials are needed.

Systemic Progestins and Progestin-Releasing Intrauterine Device Therapy for Premenopausal Patients With Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia

OBJECTIVE

To estimate trends in use and outcomes of progestin therapy for premenopausal patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia.

METHODS

The MarketScan Database was used to identify patients aged 18-50 years with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia from 2008 to 2020. Primary treatment was classified as hysterectomy or progestin-based therapy. Within the progestin group, treatment was classified as systemic therapy or progestin-releasing intrauterine device (IUD). The trends in use of progestins and the pattern of progestin use were examined. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to examine the association between baseline characteristics and the use of progestins. The cumulative incidence of hysterectomy, uterine cancer, and pregnancy since initiation of progestin therapy was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 3,947 patients were identified. Hysterectomy was performed in 2,149 (54.4%); progestins were used in 1,798 (45.6%). Use of progestins increased from 44.2% in 2008 to 63.4% in 2020 (P=.002). Among the progestin users, 1,530 (85.1%) were treated with systemic progestin, and 268 (14.9%) were treated with progestin-releasing IUD. Among progestin users, use of IUD increased from 7.7% in 2008 to 35.6% in 2020 (P<.001). Hysterectomy was ultimately performed in 36.0% (95% CI 32.8-39.3%) of those who received systemic progestins compared with 22.9% (95% CI 16.5-30.0%) of those treated with progestin-releasing IUD (P<.001). Subsequent uterine cancer was documented in 10.5% (95% CI 7.6-13.8%) of those who received systemic progestins compared with 8.2% (95% CI 3.1-16.6%) of those treated with progestin-releasing IUD (P=.24). Venous thromboembolic complications occurred in 27 (1.5%) of those treated with progestins; the venous thromboembolism (VTE) rate was similar for oral progestins and progestin-releasing IUD.

CONCLUSION

The rate of conservative treatment with progestins in premenopausal individuals with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia has increased over time, and among progestin users, progestin-releasing IUD use is increasing. Progestin-releasing IUD use may be associated with a lower rate of hysterectomy and a similar rate of VTE compared with oral progestin therapy.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system-based therapies for early-stage endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the oncological and fertility outcomes of early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) treated with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LIUS)-based regimens.

METHODS

The Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement for meta-analyses was followed. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Preprints, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1990 to August 4, 2022. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used for quality assessment. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate and the secondary endpoints were relapse, pregnancy, and live birth rate.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies (821 women) were included. The CR rate of LIUS-based regimens was 63.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=52.3%-73.2%), with 29.6% (95% CI=23.3%-36.8%) of cases experiencing recurrence during follow-up. In sensitivity analyses, patients younger than 45 years of age with a body mass index <30 kg/m² who were treated with LIUS-based regimens achieved a high CR rate of 84.6% (95% CI=80.3%-88.1%) over a median follow-up of more than 24 months. Overall pregnancy and live birth rates were 37.9% (95% CI=24.1%-53.9%) and 39.3% (95% CI=24.0%-57.0%), respectively. No statistical differences were apparent in CR or relapse rates among the LIUS+GnRH agonist, LIUS+oral progesterone, or hysteroscopic resection followed by LIUS subgroups.

CONCLUSION

LIUS-based therapies are viable for the conservative management of early-stage endometrioid EC on CR and fertility outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022352890.

Endometrial hyperplasia as a risk factor of endometrial cancer

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.

Efficacy of the LNG-IUS for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia and early stage endometrial cancer: Can biomarkers predict response?

Endometrial Cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecologic malignancy in the developed world, and is increasing in premenopausal women. The surgical standard of care for early-stage EC is not possible in women with concurrent comorbidities or women who desire a fertility sparing approach. The Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) is gaining traction as an alternative treatment for endometrial hyperplasia and early stage EC in inoperable women. Whilst early evidence appears promising, predictive biomarkers need to be established to determine non-responders, which make up one in three women. This timely review discusses the current literature around the identification of clinical, molecular and novel biomarkers that show potential to predict response to progesterone treatment, including the LNG-IUS.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (27 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2014, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 191 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover endometrial carcinoma staging, definition of prognostic risk groups integrating molecular markers, pre- and intra-operative work-up, fertility preservation, management for early, advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease and palliative treatment. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (27 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2014, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 191 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover endometrial carcinoma staging, definition of prognostic risk groups integrating molecular markers, pre- and intra-operative work-up, fertility preservation, management for early, advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease and palliative treatment. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multi-disciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

Fertility-sparing management for endometrial cancer: review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Primary surgery is effective in low-risk endometrial cancer (EC). However, in young women, this approach compromises fertility. Therefore, fertility-sparing management in the case of atypical endometrial hyperplasia, or grade 1 EC limited to the endometrium can be considered.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a literature review to identify studies involving women with EC or atypical hyperplasia who underwent fertility-sparing management. We conducted multiple bibliographic databases research from 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.

Progestin therapy for obese women with complex atypical hyperplasia: levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device vs systemic therapy

BACKGROUND

Though hysterectomy remains the standard treatment for complex atypical hyperplasia, patients who desire fertility or who are poor surgical candidates may opt for progestin therapy. However, the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device compared to systemic therapy in the treatment of complex atypical hyperplasia has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine differences in treatment response between local progestin therapy with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and systemic progestin therapy in women with complex atypical hyperplasia.

METHODS

This single-institution retrospective study examined women with complex atypical hyperplasia who received progestin therapy between 2003 and 2018. Treatment response was assessed by histopathology on subsequent biopsies. Time-dependent analyses of complete response and progression to cancer were performed comparing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and systemic therapy. A propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting model was used to create a weighted cohort that differed based on treatment type but was similar with respect to other characteristics. An interaction-term analysis was performed to examine the impact of body habitus on treatment response, and an interrupted time-series analysis was employed to assess if changes in treatment patterns correlated with outcomes over time.

RESULTS

A total of 245 women with complex atypical hyperplasia received progestin therapy (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device n = 69 and systemic therapy n = 176). The mean age and body mass index were 36.9 years and 40.0 kg/m², respectively. In the patient-level analysis, women who received the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device had higher rates of complete response (78.7% vs 46.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval, 2.39-4.62) and a lower likelihood of progression to cancer (4.5% vs 15.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.73) compared to those who received systemic therapy. In particular, women with class III obesity derived a higher relative benefit from levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device therapy in achieving complete response compared to systemic therapy: class III obesity, adjusted hazard ratio 4.72, 95% confidence interval 2.83-7.89; class I-II obesity, adjusted hazard ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.09-3.09; and nonobese, adjusted hazard ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.40-3.95. In the cohort-level analysis, the obesity rate increased during the study period (77.8% to 88.2%, 13.4% relative increase, P = .033) and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device use significantly increased after 2007 (6.3% to 82.7%, 13.2-fold increase, P < .001), both concomitant with a higher proportion of women achieving complete response (32.9% to 81.4%, 2.5-fold increase, P = .005).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that local therapy with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device may be more effective than systemic therapy for women with complex atypical hyperplasia who opt for nonsurgical treatment, particularly in morbidly obese women. Shifts in treatment paradigm during the study period toward increased levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device use also led to improved complete response rates despite increasing rates of obesity.

LNG-IUS 12: a 19.5 levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for prevention of pregnancy for up to five years

INTRODUCTION

Globally, intrauterine devices (IUDs) are the second most commonly used form of reversible contraception because of their high efficacy, safety, convenience and cost effectiveness. The levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system with daily average release of 20 mcg (LNG-IUS 20) is the popular choice because of its favorable bleeding patterns and many noncontraceptive benefits. A three year (LNG-IUS 8) became available three years ago. More recently, the LNG-IUS 12 was added. This new IUD shares a smaller frame, narrow inserter and lower rate of amenorrhea with the LNG-IUS 8, but it offers the five years of contraceptive protection of the LNG-IUS 20. Areas covered: This article provides information on the contraceptive efficacy, safety and tolerability of this new IUS based on approximately 60,000 cycles of use. Where available, the impacts of subject age, parity and body mass index (BMI) on study outcomes are reported. Expert opinion: This new LNG-IUS 12 with mid-dose hormone levels, smaller frame and longer effective life fills a niche that may better meet the needs of women who might appreciate the narrow insertion tube and/or the lower rates of amenorrhea. Cost will ultimately help determine success.