Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36185260›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Oncological outcomes in fertility-sparing treatment in stage IA-G2 endometrial cancer.

Carlo Ronsini, Lavinia Mosca, Irene Iavarone, Roberta Nicoletti, Davide Vinci, Raffaela Maria Carotenuto, Francesca Pasanisi, Maria Cristina Solazzo, Pasquale De Franciscis, Marco Torella and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Endometrial cancer therapy in 2026.Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. The game-changing impact ofFrontiers in oncology · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

15 authors.

Carlo RonsiniDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Lavinia MoscaDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Irene IavaroneDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Roberta NicolettiDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Davide VinciDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Raffaela Maria CarotenutoDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Francesca PasanisiDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Maria Cristina SolazzoDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Pasquale De FranciscisDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Marco TorellaDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Marco La VerdeDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Nicola ColacurciDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Luigi CobellisDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe VizzielliDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Udine University Hospital, Udine, Italy.
Stefano RestainoDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Udine University Hospital, Udine, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The gold standard treatment for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) is hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with lymphadenectomy. In selected patients desiring pregnancy, fertility-sparing treatment (FST) can be adopted. Our review aims to collect the most incisive studies about the possibility of conservative management for patients with grade 2, stage IA EC. Different approaches can be considered beyond demolition surgery, such as local treatment with levonorgestrel-releasing intra-uterine device (LNG-IUD) plus systemic therapy with progestins. Study design: Our systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were consulted, and five studies were chosen based on the following criteria: patients with a histological diagnosis of EC stage IA G2 in reproductive age desiring pregnancy and at least one oncological outcome evaluated. Search imputes were "endometrial cancer" AND "fertility sparing" AND "oncologic outcomes" AND "G2 or stage IA". Results: A total of 103 patients were included and treated with a combination of LNG-IUD plus megestrol acetate (MA) or medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) plus MPA/MA, hysteroscopic resectoscope (HR), and dilation and curettage (D&C). There is evidence of 70% to 85% complete response after second-round therapy prolongation to 12 months. Conclusions: Conservative measures must be considered temporary to allow pregnancy and subsequently perform specific counseling to adopt surgery. Fertility-sparing management is not the current standard of care for young women with EC. It can be employed for patients with early-stage diseases motivated to maintain reproductive function. Indeed, the results are encouraging, but the sample size must be increased.

Indexed as

endometrial cancerfertilitylevonorgestrel intrauterine device (IUD)medroxyprogesterone acetatepregnancy outcomes

Identifiers

PMID36185260
PMCPMC9524219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.