Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35117379›Full record

ReviewTranslational cancer research2020

Hysteroscopy in the management of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in reproductive aged women: new developments and current perspectives.

Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Gaetano Riemma, Jose Carugno, Benito Chiofalo, George Angelos Vilos, Stefano Cianci, Mehmet Sukru Budak, Bernardo Portugal Lasmar, Antonio Raffone, Ilker Kahramanoglu

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Salvatore Giovanni VitaleObstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Department of General Surgery and Medical Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Gaetano RiemmaDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania 'Luigi Vanvitelli', Naples, Italy.
Jose CarugnoObstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Department, Minimally Invasive Gynecology Unit, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Benito ChiofaloDepartment of Experimental Clinical Oncology, IRCCS-Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
George Angelos VilosDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Stefano CianciDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania 'Luigi Vanvitelli', Naples, Italy.
Mehmet Sukru BudakDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Health Sciences University Diyarbakır Gazi Yaşargil Education and Research Hospital, Diyarbakır, Turkey.
Bernardo Portugal LasmarDepartment of Gynecological Endoscopy, Hospital Central Aristarcho Pessoa (HCAP-CBMERJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Antonio RaffoneGynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Ilker KahramanogluDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITIstanbul University · TRIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITSağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TRUniversity of Catania · ITUniversity of Miami · USUniversity of Naples Federico II · ITWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last twenty years, the incidence of early endometrial cancer (EC) and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) among women of reproductive age is increasing rapidly, likely due to a combination of factors including increased prevalence of obesity and delayed of childbirths. Regarding preoperative diagnosis of endometrial neoplasia, it is still debated which is the most accurate and reliable method to obtain endometrial histopathological samples with fractional dilatation and curettage (D&C) having been considered, for a long time, as the method of choice. Nowadays, the advent of in-office endometrial biopsy with or without hysteroscopy has radically changed the approach, giving the opportunity to perform the endometrial biopsy under direct visualization. However, the lack of agreement about its diagnostic accuracy is still relevant. Since a significant number of women with AEH and/or EC are of childbearing age, a fertility-sparing diagnostic and therapeutic approach should be considered in all cases. The feasibility, safety and efficacy of fertility-sparing strategies involving hysteroscopic focal resections in conjunction with hormonal therapies have been evaluated and beneficial effects have been confirmed in several studies and one meta-analysis. Both local and systemic administration of hormonal therapies are currently used. Oral progestin, including medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and megestrol acetate, are the most commonly used therapies. Nowadays, new therapeutic approaches, such as levonorgestrel intrauterine systems (LNG-IUS), gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, combined megestrol acetate and metformin, and other combinations of therapies are also used as first line therapies or after the hysteroscopic resection of the lesion. However, it is still unclear which approach provides higher clinical response with lower relapse rate, in addition to preserving fertility in women desiring to conceive. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the available evidence regarding the evaluation and management with fertility-sparing treatments options of women with AEC and EC.

Indexed as

endometrial atypical hyperplasiaendometrial carcinomafertility-sparingHysteroscopyinfertility

Identifiers

PMID35117379
PMCPMC8799018
OpenAlexW3047233379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.