4.4 Article

A prospective study of fertility-sparing treatment with megestrol acetate following hysteroscopic curettage for well-differentiated endometrioid carcinoma and atypical hyperplasia in young women

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Volume 288, Issue 5, Pages 1115-1123

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-013-2826-8

Keywords

Endometrioid carcinoma; Fertility-sparing therapy; Hysteroscopy; Megestrol acetate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To investigate the feasibility and efficacy of curettage with hysteroscopy followed by megestrol acetate (MA) for well-differentiated endometrioid carcinoma (EC) confined to the endometrium and for atypical hyperplasia (AH) in young women. Fourteen patients with EC and 12 patients with AH were prospectively enrolled in this study. All of the patients received at least 12 weeks of oral MA (160 mg/day) following thorough curettage with hysteroscopy. The response was assessed histologically every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate. Adverse events, pregnancy rates and recurrence rates were secondary end points. Twenty-one (80.8 %) patients responded to treatment. The median time to response was 12 weeks. After a median follow-up of 32 months, 6 patients had recurrences. Significantly, more patients with infertility or PCOS experienced recurrence (P = 0.040, P = 0.015). Eight patients attempted to conceive after complete response; two spontaneous conceptions and one normal delivery were achieved. No disease-related or treatment-related deaths were observed. Fertility-sparing treatment with MA following entirely hysteroscopic curettage is effective, demonstrating the least toxicity for rigorously selected young women with well-differentiated EC confined to the endometrium or with AH; however, close follow-up is required for the potential consequences of improper patient selection and a substantial rate of recurrence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available