4.5 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors for remission in fertility-sparing management of endometrial atypical hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS
Volume 146, Issue 3, Pages 277-288

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12882

Keywords

Adenocarcinoma; Atypical hyperplasia; Endometrial cancer; Fertility sparing; Meta-analysis; Operative hysteroscopy; Remission; Systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia are rare in young women but create a dilemma between desire for pregnancy and oncologic outcomes. Objective To identify remission rates and associated prognostic factors in patients undergoing fertility-sparing management for endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia. Search strategy MEDLINE was searched for studies published between January 1, 1950 and July 31, 2017 using various search terms. Selection criteria Studies evaluating fertility-sparing management in patients aged between 19 and 44 years with atypical hyperplasia or stage I endometrial cancer. Data collection and analysis Use of PRISMA guidelines to conduct a meta-analysis of the proportion of patients in remission and meta-regression analysis to test the effect of possible prognostic factors for remission. Main results A total of 3673 studies were screened; 65 studies including 1604 patients met the inclusion criteria. The remission rate was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.77). Operative hysteroscopy for endometrial sampling was associated with higher remission rates (OR 2.31; 95% CI, 1.10-4.84; P=0.03). Studies with higher ratios of infertile women were associated with higher remission rates (OR 4.21; 95% CI, 1.44-12.33; P<0.01). Conclusion Operative hysteroscopy is the preferred endometrial sampling method for patients with atypical hyperplasia or endometrial cancer undergoing fertility-sparing management.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available