Advertisement

National patterns of care and fertility outcomes for reproductive-aged women with endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia

      Background

      Although it is uncommon, the incidence of endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia among reproductive-aged women is increasing. The fertility outcomes in this population are not well described.

      Objective

      We aim to describe the patterns of care and fertility outcomes of reproductive-aged women with endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia.

      Materials and Methods

      A cohort of women aged ≤45 years with endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia diagnosed in 2000 to 2014 were identified in Truven Marketscan, an insurance claims database of commercially insured patients in the United States. Treatment information, including use of progestin therapy, hysterectomy, and assisted fertility services, was identified and collected using a combination of Common Procedural Terminology codes, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems codes, and National Drug Codes. Pregnancy events were identified from claims data using a similar technique. Patients were categorized as receiving progestin therapy alone, progestin therapy followed by hysterectomy, or standard surgical management with hysterectomy alone. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess factors associated with receiving fertility-sparing treatment.

      Results

      A total of 4007 reproductive-aged patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia were identified. The majority of these patients (n = 3189; 79.6%) received standard surgical management. Of the 818 patients treated initially with progestins, 397 (48.5%) subsequently underwent hysterectomy, whereas 421 (51.5%) did not. Patients treated with progestin therapy had a lower median age than those who received standard surgical management (median age, 36 vs 41 years; P < .001). The proportion of patients receiving progestin therapy increased significantly over the observation period, with 24.9% treated at least initially with progestin therapy in 2014 (P < .001). Multivariable analysis shows that younger age, a diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia diagnosis rather than endometrial cancer, and diagnosis later in the study period were all associated with a greater likelihood of receiving progestin therapy (P < .0001). Among the 421 patients who received progestin therapy alone, 92 patients (21.8%; 92/421) had 131 pregnancies, including 49 live births for a live birth rate of 11.6%. Among the 397 patients treated with progestin therapy followed by hysterectomy, 25 patients (6.3%; 25/397) had 34 pregnancies with 13 live births. The median age of patients who experienced a live birth following diagnosis during the study period was 36 years (interquartile range, 33−38). The use of some form of assisted fertility services was observed in 15.5% patients who were treated with progestin therapy. Among patients who experienced any pregnancy event following diagnosis, 54% of patients used some form of fertility treatment. For patients who experienced a live birth following diagnosis, 50% of patients received fertility treatment. Median time to live birth following diagnosis was 756 days (interquartile range, 525−1077). Patients treated with progestin therapy were more likely to experience a live birth if they had used assisted fertility services (odds ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.4−10.1; P < .0001).

      Conclusion

      The number of patients who received fertility-sparing treatment for endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia increased over time. However, the proportion of women who experience a live birth following these diagnoses is relatively small.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Noone A.M.
        • Howlader N.
        • Krapcho M.
        • et al.
        SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2015.
        National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD2018
        • Burke W.M.
        • Orr J.
        • et al.
        • SGO Clinical Practice Endometrial Cancer Working Group
        Endometrial cancer: a review and current management strategies: part II.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 134: 393-402
        • Burke W.M.
        • Orr J.
        • et al.
        • SGO Clinical Practice Endometrial Cancer Working Group
        Endometrial cancer: a review and current management strategies: part I.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 134: 385-392
        • Trimble C.L.
        • Method M.
        • Leitao M.
        • et al.
        Management of endometrial precancers.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120: 1160-1175
        • Rodolakis A.
        • Biliatis I.
        • Morice P.
        • et al.
        European Society of Gynecological Oncology Task Force for Fertility Preservation: Clinical recommendations for fertility-sparing management in young endometrial cancer patients.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015; 25: 1258-1265
        • Gallos I.D.
        • Yap J.
        • Rajkhowa M.
        • Luesley D.M.
        • Coomarasamy A.
        • Gupta J.K.
        Regression, relapse, and live birth rates with fertility-sparing therapy for endometrial cancer and atypical complex endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and metaanalysis.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207: 266
        • Gallos I.D.
        • Shehmar M.
        • Thangaratinam S.
        • Papapostolou T.K.
        • Coomarasamy A.
        • Gupta J.K.
        Oral progestogens vs levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and metaanalysis.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203: 547
        • Pal N.
        • Broaddus R.R.
        • Urbauer D.L.
        • et al.
        Treatment of low-risk endometrial cancer and complex atypical hyperplasia with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 131: 109-116
        • Greenwald Z.R.
        • Huang L.N.
        • Wissing M.D.
        • Franco E.L.
        • Gotlieb W.H.
        Does hormonal therapy for fertility preservation affect the survival of young women with early-stage endometrial cancer?.
        Cancer. 2017; 123: 1545-1554
        • Ruiz M.P.
        • Huang Y.
        • Hou J.Y.
        • et al.
        All-cause mortality in young women with endometrial cancer receiving progesterone therapy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217: 669
        • Gunderson C.C.
        • Fader A.N.
        • Carson K.A.
        • Bristow R.E.
        Oncologic and reproductive outcomes with progestin therapy in women with endometrial hyperplasia and grade 1 adenocarcinoma: a systematic review.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 125: 477482
        • Wei J.
        • Zhang W.
        • Feng L.
        • Gao W.
        Comparison of fertility-sparing treatments in patients with early endometrial cancer and atypical complex hyperplasia: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
        Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96e8034
        • Chae S.H.
        • Shim S.H.
        • Lee S.J.
        • Lee J.Y.
        • Kim S.N.
        • Kang S.B.
        Pregnancy and oncologic outcomes after fertility-sparing management for early stage endometrioid endometrial cancer.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019; 29: 77-85
      1. IBM Corporation. IBM MarketScan Research Databases for Health Services Researchers. Available at: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/6KNYVVQ2. 2018. Accessed May 7, 2019.

        • Klabunde C.N.
        • Harlan L.C.
        • Warren J.L.
        Data sources for measuring comorbidity: a comparison of hospital records and Medicare claims for cancer patients.
        Med Care. 2006; 44: 921-928
        • Klabunde C.N.
        • Potosky A.L.
        • Legler J.M.
        • Warren J.L.
        Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53: 1258-1267
        • Gambadauro P.
        The reproductive prognosis of women considering fertility preservation for early stage endometrial cancer.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
        Obesity and reproduction: a committee opinion.
        Fertil Steril. 2015; 104: 1116-1126
        • American College of Obstetricians Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice
        Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589.
        Fertil Steril. 2014; 101: 633-634
        • Oktay K.
        • Harvey B.E.
        • Partridge A.H.
        • et al.
        Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update.
        J Clin Oncol. 2018; 36: 1994-2001
      2. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Management of Endometrial Hyperplasia. Green-top Guideline No. 67. 2016. 1st ed. Available at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/green-top-guidelines/gtg_67_endometrial_hyperplasia.pdf. 2016. Accessed June 11, 2019.

        • La Russa M.
        • Zapardiel I.
        • Halaska M.J.
        • et al.
        Conservative management of endometrial cancer: a survey amongst European clinicians.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018; 298: 373-380
        • Koskas M.
        • Uzan J.
        • Luton D.
        • Rouzier R.
        • Darai E.
        Prognostic factors of oncologic and reproductive outcomes in fertility-sparing management of endometrial atypical hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Fertil Steril. 2014; 101: 785-794