RESUMEN
Objective@#To evaluate the effect of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) plus oral megestrol acetate (MA) as fertility-preserving treatment in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer (EEC). @*Methods@#In this single-center, phase II study with open-label, randomized and controlled design, young patients (18–45 years) diagnosed with primary EEC were screened, who strongly required fertility-preserving treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into MA group (160 mg oral daily) or MA (160 mg oral daily) plus LNG-IUS group. Pathologic evaluation on endometrium retrieved by hysteroscopy was performed every 3 months. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate within 16 weeks of treatment. The secondary endpoints were CR rate within 32 weeks of treatment, adverse events, recurrent and pregnancy rate. @*Results@#Between July 2017 and June 2020, 63 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. Totally 56 patients (26 in MA group; 28 in MA + LNG-IUS group) were included into primary-endpoint analyses. The median follow-up was 31.6 months (range, 3.1–94.0). No significant difference in 16-week CR rate were found between MA and MA + LNG-IUS groups (19.2% vs. 25.0%, p=0.610; odds ratio=1.40; 95% confidence interval=0.38–5.12), while the 32-week CR rates were also similar (57.1% and 61.5%, p=0.743), accordingly. More women in MA + LNG-IUS group experienced vaginal hemorrhage (46.4% vs. 16.1%; p=0.012) compared with MA group. No intergroup difference was found regarding recurrence or pregnancy rate. @*Conclusion@#Compared with MA alone, the addition of LNG-IUS may not improve the early CR rate for EEC, and may produce more adverse events instead.
RESUMEN
Objective@#This study aimed to investigate the impact of molecular classification and PTEN, KRAS and PIK3CA gene mutation on the outcome of fertility-preserving treatment in the patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) and endometrial atypical hyperplasia (EAH). @*Methods@#This is a single-center retrospective study. A total of 135 patients with EEC and EAH receiving fertility-preserving treatment and molecular classification were reviewed. The distribution of the four types of molecular classification was described. The impact of non-specific molecular profile (NSMP), mismatch repair-deficiency (MMRd), and PTEN, KRAS and PIK3CA gene mutation on the outcome of fertility-preserving treatment was analyzed. @*Results@#Of the patients analyzed, 86.7% (117/136) were classified as having NSMP; 14 (10.4%), MMRd; 1 (0.7%), POLEmut EAH; and 3 (2.2%), p53abn EEC. The patients having NSMP and MMRd achieved similar 16-, 32-, and 48-week complete response rates. The patients harboring tier I and tier II PTEN mutations (PTENmut-Clin) achieved lower cumulative 32-week CR rates than those with PTEN-others (without PTENmut-Clin) (22/47, 46.8% vs. 50/74, 67.6%; p=0.023; odds ratio=0.422; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.199–0.896). Insulin-resistance (hazard ratio [HR]=0.435; 95% CI=0.269–0.702; p=0.001) and PTENmut-Clin (HR=0.535; 95% CI=0.324–0.885; p=0.015) were independent negative predictors for lower 32-week CR rates. @*Conclusion@#PTENmut-Clin is an independent risk factor for unfavorable fertility-preserving treatment outcomes in the patients with EEC and EAH. The patients with MMRd receiving fertility-preserving treatment achieved outcomes similar to those of the patients with NSMP. The molecular profiles might guide fertility-preserving treatment in the prognosis and clinical decisions.
RESUMEN
Objective@#This study investigated the characteristics of progestin-insensitive endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) patients receiving fertility-sparing treatments and assessed the therapeutic effects of second-line fertility-preserving treatments. @*Methods@#Three hundred and thirty-eight patients with EEC (n=75) or AEH (n=263) receiving fertility-preserving treatment were retrospectively analyzed. ‘Progestin-insensitive’ was defined as meeting one of the following criteria: 1) presented with progressed disease at any time during conservative treatment, 2) remained with stable disease after 7 months of treatment, and/or 3) did not achieve complete response (CR) after 10 months of treatment. Clinical characteristics and treatment results of progestin-insensitive patients receiving second-line treatment and those of progestin-sensitive patients were compared. @*Results@#Eight-two patients (59 AEH and 23 EEC) were defined as progestin-insensitive and 256 as progestin-sensitive. In multivariate analysis, body mass index ≥28.0 kg/m2 (odds ratio [OR]=1.898) and lesion size >2 cm (OR=2.077) were independent predictors of progestin-insensitive status. Compared to AEH patients, progestin-insensitive EEC patients had poorer second-line treatment responses (28-week cumulative CR rate after changing second-line treatment, 56.3% vs. 85.4%, p=0.011). No statistical difference was found in CR rate among different second-line treatments. @*Conclusion@#Obesity and larger lesion size were independent risk factors associated with progestin-insensitive status. In progestin-insensitive patients receiving second-line treatment, EEC patients had lower CR rate comparing with AEH patients. Further study with larger sample size is needed to evaluate efficacy of different second-line treatments for progestin insensitive patients.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of metformin plus megestrol acetate (MA) with that of MA alone for treating endometrial atypical hyperplasia (EAH). METHODS: This pilot study included 16 EAH patients who met at least one metabolic syndrome (MS) criterion and received either adjunctive metformin plus MA (MET group) or MA monotherapy (MA group). Each patient in the MA group received 160 mg of MA daily, whereas patients in the MET group received the same dose of MA plus 0.5 g of metformin thrice daily. Treatment response was assessed by histological examination of dilation and curettage specimens obtained after 12 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Each group had eight patients, and half of the patients in each group were diagnosed with MS. The complete response (CR) rate was 75% (6/8) in the MET group and 25% (2/8) in the MA group (p=0.105). Complications of MS did not affect the response rates in either group. In the MET group, 75% (3/4) of the patients had CR in the presence or absence of MS. In the MA group, 50% (2/4) of the patients with MS had CR, whereas no patient without MS had CR. No irreversible toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: Metformin plus MA may be a potential alternative therapy for treating EAH, and the MS status of patients may have no effect on the efficacy of metformin plus MA therapy.