ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2023
Comparison of Mirena and Liletta levonorgestrel intrauterine devices for the treatment of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and grade 1 endometrioid endometrial cancer.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Review
- Evidence for some, extrapolation for others: Levonorgestrel IUDs and health equity in Gynecologic Oncology.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Current standard nonsurgical management of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and grade 1 endometrioid endometrial cancer (g1EEC) is the Mirena levonorgestrel intrauterine device (M-IUD). This retrospective study was designed primarily to determine noninferiority of the Liletta IUD (L-IUD) for pathologic regression of EIN and g1EEC compared to the M-IUD at 6 months of continuous use. Secondary objectives include to determine noninferiority as above at 3, 9, and 12 months of continuous use and to identify factors including DNA mismatch repair (MMR) status associated with pathologic regression after LNG-IUD use. Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed with patients treated for EIN or g1EEC and managed continuously with M- or L-IUD. Patients with recent (within 6 months) or concurrent progesterone use were excluded. For the EIN group, the noninferiority margin of odds ratio was predetermined to be 0.58, and for the g1EEC group it was 0.64. Results: 62 patients from an academic center and a safety-net hospital were identified with continuous M-IUD (n = 44) or L-IUD (n = 18) use for EIN or g1EEC. 85% of patients treated with L-IUD were from a safety-net hospital, which had 63% with public insurance. At 3/6/9 months, 54/71/73% of patients with M-IUD and 80/83/100% with L-IUD had pathologic regression of EIN (95% confidence interval of estimated odds ratio 1.00-2.07/0.84-2.03/0.69-2.10). Lifetime smoking status, not MMR status, was significantly associated with pathologic regression. Conclusions: L-IUD is an effective fertility-sparing treatment for EIN. L-IUD is noninferior to M-IUD for pathologic regression of EIN after 3,6, and 9 months. Further larger studies are warranted to validate findings in EIN and g1EEC.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.