Zhi-ying Xu

and 13 more

Objective To compare the effect of levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with or without oral megestrol acetate (MA) versus MA alone on fertility preserving treatment in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). Design Single-center phase II study with open-label, randomized and controlled trial conducted between July 2017 and June 2020. Setting Obstetrics & Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China Population A total of 180 patients (18-45 years) with primary AEH were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to MA group (N=60), LNG-IUS group (N=60), or MA+LNG-IUS group (N=60). Methods Patients received MA (160 mg orally daily), LNG-IUS, or MA+LNG-IUS (MA 160 mg orally daily plus LNG-IUS), respectively. Main outcomes and measures The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate at 16 weeks of treatment. The secondary endpoints were the CR rate at 32 weeks of treatment, adverse events, recurrent rate, and pregnancy rate. Results LNG-IUS group yielded a higher 16-week CR rate than MA group (P=0.049; Odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 1.00-6.00). However, MA+LNG-IUS group did not yield better 16-week or 32-week CR rates than MA group (P=0.245; P=0.915) or LNG-IUS group (P=0.419; P=0.653). Meanwhile, less side-effects were found in LNG-IUS group compared with the other two groups. No significant difference was seen in recurrence rates and pregnancy rates among all three groups. Conclusions LNG-IUS might be considered as the first-line choice of fertility-sparing treatment in AEH patients with proper size of uterine cavity. LNG-IUS combined with MA might not provide better treatment effect than MA or LNG-IUS alone.

Bo Wang

and 7 more

Objective: To evaluate the risk of lymph node metastasis and figure out necessity of lymphadenectomy in grade 3 endometroid endometrial cancer (EEC) patients. Methods: From 2009 to 2019, 3751 endometrial cancer (EC) patients were diagnosed at Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, 1235 EEC patients were enrolled in multivariable analysis. 381 patients had survival analysis attributed to sufficient follow-up information. Kaplan-Meier curve and logrank test were used to analyze the survival rate. Results: Among 1235 EEC patients, multivariate analysis showed lymph-vascular invasion (LVSI), adnexal involvement (AI), cervical stroma involvement (CSI) were independent risk factors of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in grade 3 (G3) cohort (OR=3.45, 5.83, 8.93; 95% CI 1.12-10.64, 1.52-22.35, 2.85-28.00 respectively). LNM rates increased from 3.3% to 75% for EEC G3 cohort with the increase of risk factors from one to three. There were no differences between G3 and grade 1&2 (G1&2) in overall survival or progression free survival. Similarly, no survival advantage was found for EEC G3 patients at early stage with different plans of adjuvant treatment. Conclusion: When EEC G3 patients combine with one or more risk factors including LVSI, AI and CSI, lymphadenectomy is recommended. For those with only one factor of G3, it is recommended to evaluate the status of lymph nodes by considering other methods such as sentinel lymph node biopsy technology to avoid overtreatment. Survival analysis showed no difference in EEC G3 cohort compared with G1&2. Also, different plans of adjuvant treatment had no impact on overall survival for EEC G3 patients.