Development of endometrioid adenocarcinoma despite Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: a case report with discussion and review of the RCOG/BSGE Guideline on the Management of Endometrial Hyperplasia

Endometrial Cancer Following Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System Insertion in Young Women with Atypical Hyperplasia: Two Case Reports and Literature Review

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) insertion is the first-line treatment for atypical hyperplasia (AH) in young women who wish to retain their fertility. However, the procedure is not always effective, and may allow AH to progress to endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC). Two young women with AH who wished to preserve their fertility developed EEC following 52-mg LNG-IUS in insertion at our institution. One was a 34-year-old woman diagnosed with endometrial cancer 2 years after LNG-IUS insertion. The second was a 30-year-old woman diagnosed 17 months after LNG-IUS insertion. Proactive molecular risk classification for endometrial cancer (ProMisE) classification revealed that the first and second patients had p53-abnormal (p53abn) EEC and mismatch repair deficient (MMR-d) EEC, respectively. MMR-d and p 53abn were frequently observed in both AH and EEC specimens. Studies suggest that MMR-d and p53abn are predictors of the occurrence adverse effects after fertility-preserving treatment for EEC. AH is a precursor of EEC. Therefore, p53 and mismatch repair (MMR) mutation may be used to identify women with AH who will not likely benefit from progestin therapy. Molecular assays in women with AH will likely be useful for identifying novel predictive biomarkers of progestin resistance and to improve the safety of conservative treatment. Combined assessment of progesterone receptor (PR) with these predictive molecular markers may improve the predictive ability.

Clinical Evaluation of Li Brush Endometrial Samplers for Diagnosing Endometrial Lesions in Women With Intrauterine Devices

Background: For women with intrauterine devices (IUDs), it is difficult to sample the endometrium when abnormal uterine bleeding occurs or when regular screening of endometrial cancer is proposed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the validity of endometrial sampling using Li Brush in IUD users.

Methods: This study was a prospective cohort study and conducted in two parts. Part I was to assess the impact of Li Brush on the position of IUDs. Transvaginal ultrasound was used to locate IUDs before and after sampling. Part II was to explore the diagnostic accuracy of Li Brush in detecting endometrial lesions. IUD users with irregular uterine bleeding were recruited in the IUD group and IUD non-users who arranged for dilatation and curettage (D&C) were recruited in the control group. The endometrium was sampled by Li Brush for cells and by D&C for tissues in both groups. The satisfactoriness of sampling and validity of Li Brush were evaluated.

Results: Seventeen cases in part I confirmed no significant difference in the position of IUDs before and after sampling (p = 0.20). 112 IUD users and 139 IUD non-users were recruited in part II. Li Brush achieved 94.64 and 92.09% satisfactory sampling rates in the IUD group and control group, respectively, without statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.42). The Sensitivity and specificity of Li Brush for detection of endometrial lesions in IUD group were 95.35 and 87.76% respectively.

Conclusions: Li Brush used for endometrial biopsy did not affect the position of IUDs and had high yield of satisfactory samples and good validity for endometrial diagnoses. It was feasible to screen endometrial lesions by Li Brush for women with IUDs.