RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.