4.6 Review

Concurrent and future risk of endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232231

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Queen's University Belfast International Studentship
  2. Queen's University Belfast Vice Chancellor's Fellowship
  3. Cancer Research UK Career Establishment Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background To inform treatment decisions in women diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia, quantification of the potential for concurrent endometrial cancer and the future risk of progression to cancer is required. Methods We identified studies up to September 2018 that reported on the prevalence of concurrent cancer (within three months of endometrial hyperplasia diagnosis), or the incidence of cancer, identified at least three months after hyperplasia diagnosis. Random-effects meta-analyses produced pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 36 articles were identified; 15 investigating concurrent and 21 progression to cancer. In pooled analysis of 11 studies of atypical hyperplasia, the pooled prevalence of concurrent endometrial cancer was 32.6% (95% CI: 24.1%, 42.4%) while no studies evaluated concurrent cancer in non-atypical hyperplasia. The risk of progression to cancer was high in atypical hyperplasia (n = 5 studies, annual incidence rate = 8.2%, 95% CI 3.9%, 17.3%) and only one study reported on non-atypical hyperplasia (annual incidence rate = 2.6%, 95% CI: 0.6%, 10.6%). Conclusions Overall, a third of women with atypical hyperplasia had concurrent endometrial cancer, although the number of studies, especially population-based, is small. Progression to cancer in atypical hyperplasia was high, but few studies were identified. Population-based estimates are required, in both atypical and non-atypical hyperplasia patients to better inform treatment strategies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available