Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40530764›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025

Conservative hysteroscopic treatment of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and endometrial cancer in patients with high surgical risk with mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal systems: A retrospective cohort study.

Alessandro Arena, Camilla Franceschini, Eugenia Mantovani, Agnese Virgilio, Erika Bettiol, Manuela Guerrini, Attilio di Spiezio Sardo, Maria Chiara De Angelis, Renato Seracchioli, Paolo Casadio

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Alessandro ArenaDivision of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Camilla FranceschiniDepartment of Gynecological and Obstetrics, San Luca Hospital, Lucca, Italy.
Eugenia MantovaniDivision of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9625-7496
Agnese VirgilioIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Erika BettiolDivision of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Manuela GuerriniDivision of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Attilio di Spiezio SardoIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Maria Chiara De AngelisIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Renato SeracchioliDivision of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Paolo CasadioDivision of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

noneThe work reported in this publication was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health, RC-n. 2025-2796962 project
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare surgical and oncologic outcomes between conventional resectoscopic surgery and mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal (mHTR) systems in high-risk patients not suitable for standard surgery undergoing conservative treatment for multifocal endometrial atypical hyperplasia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EAH/EIN) or early-stage low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC).

methodsWe conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study at the Department of Gynecology and Physiopathology of Human Reproduction, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Italy. A total of 31 high-surgical-risk patients with EAH/EIN or early-stage low-grade EEC were included: 18 underwent conventional resectoscopic endo-myometrial resection, while 13 were treated with mHTR systems. All patients received a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) postoperatively. After treatment, patients underwent an 18-month follow up with endometrial biopsies every 6 months.

resultsThe mHTR group had significantly shorter operative times (mean 12.3 ± 7.7 min) compared with the resectoscopic surgery group (mean 40.6 ± 11.8 min, P < 0.001). Additionally, the incidence of intrauterine adhesions was lower in the mHTR group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of disease presence at 6, 12, or 18 months.

conclusionsHysteroscopic endo-myometrial resection, with resectoscopic technique or with mHTR systems, combined with LNG-IUD may represent a safe alternative for patients at high surgical risk with EAH/EIN or early-stage low-grade EEC. Moreover, mHTR demonstrated advantages such as shorter operative times and fewer adhesions. A large multicenter prospective study is needed to confirm our study findings.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, EndometrioidCarcinoma in SituEndometrial HyperplasiaEndometrial NeoplasmsHysteroscopyAdultAgedConservative TreatmentFemaleHumansIntrauterine Devices, MedicatedItalyLevonorgestrelMiddle AgedOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesLevonorgestrelconservative treatmentendometrial cancerhysteroscopyresectoscopetissue removal devices

Identifiers

PMID40530764
PMCPMC12640164

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.