Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 2, pp 373–380 | Cite as

Conservative management of endometrial cancer: a survey amongst European clinicians

  • M. La Russa
  • I. Zapardiel
  • M. J. HalaskaEmail author
  • K. Zalewski
  • R. Laky
  • P. Dursun
  • D. Lindquist
  • V. Sukhin
  • S. Polterauer
  • I. Biliatis
Gynecologic Oncology



To investigate differences and similarities in the clinical approach of young clinicians managing women with endometrial cancer (EC) conservatively.


A web-based survey was carried out. A platform of the European Network of Young Gynaecological Oncologists (ENYGO) database was used. A 38-item multiple-choice questionnaire was used to evaluate current practice in fertility-sparing management of EC. The survey covered investigations, treatment options, follow-up and management of recurrence and future family planning. Descriptive statistics were used.


Overall, 116 out of 650 (17.84%) ENYGO members responded to the survey. In 92 (79.3%) centres, the caseload of early stage EC treated conservatively was less than 10 per year. One hundred and seven responders (93.8%) believe that treatment with progestins could be offered in grade 1 EC without myometrial invasion, but a minority would recommend it even for grade 2 tumours with no myometrial invasion or grade 1 with superficial invasion. The diagnostic tool for establishing grade of tumour was hysteroscopy with dilatation and curettage in 64 (55%) centres. Medroxyprogesterone acetate represents the most commonly prescribed progestogen (55, 47.4%). In 78 (67.2%) centres, a repeat endometrial biopsy was offered after 3 months of treatment commencement. Recurrences are treated mostly with hysterectomy (81, 69.9%) with only a small number of responders recommending to repeat progestin treatment. Lynch syndrome is a contraindication for conservative management in half of the responders (57, 49.1%). Most clinicians agree that patients should be referred promptly for assisted reproductive techniques once complete response has been achieved (68, 58.6%).


Our study shows that conservative management is increasingly offered to women affected by early stage EC wishing to preserve their fertility. Further studies and joint registries are required to evaluate safety and effectiveness of this approach in this probably growing number of patients.


Endometrial cancer Conservative management Progestins Assisted reproduction Pregnancies 


Author contributions

MR: manuscript writing, protocol development, and data analysis. IZ: manuscript editing, protocol development, and data analysis. MJH: manuscript editing, protocol development, and data analysis. KZ: manuscript editing and data analysis. RL: manuscript editing and data collection. PD: manuscript editing and data collection. DL: manuscript editing and data collection. VS: manuscript editing and data collection. SP: manuscript editing and data collection. IB: manuscript writing/editing, protocol development, and data analysis


The study was funded by Charles University research project Progress Q-28 Oncology (MJH).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Signed disclosure is added in a separate file, and there is no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent is not needed, as it is an original research based on a questionnaire.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Lee NK, Cheung MK, Shin JY et al (2007) Prognostic factors for uterine cancer in reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol 109:655–662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Result programme. Accesed Apr 2 2017
  4. 4.
    Garg K, Soslow RA (2014) Endometrial carcinoma in women aged 40 years and younger. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138:335–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (2013). Continuous Update Project Report. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Endometrial Cancer.
  6. 6.
    Zhang Y, Liu H, Yang S et al (2014) Overweight, obesity and endometrial cancer risk: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Biol Markers 29:e21–e29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fader AN, Arriba LN, Frasure HE et al (2009) Endometrial cancer and obesity: epidemiology, biomarkers, prevention and survivorship. Gynecol Oncol 114(1):121–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esposito K, Chiodini P, Capuano A et al (2014) Metabolic syndrome and endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Endocrine 45:28–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    National Cancer Institute. Endometrial cancer treatment Physician Data Query (PDQ).2015; Accessed 1 Apr 2015
  11. 11.
    Gallos ID, Yap J, Rajkhowa M et al (2012) Regression, relapse, and live birth rates with fertility-sparing therapy for endometrialcancer and atypical complex endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207(4):266.e1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodolakis A, Biliatis I, Morice P et al (2015) 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 25:1258–1265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Endometrial Consensus Conference Working Group et al (2016) ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26(1):2–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choi HJ, Lee S, Park BK et al (2016) Long-term outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging-invisible endometrial cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 27(4):e38CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Woo S, Kim SY, Cho JY et al (2017) Assessment of deep myometrial invasion of endometrial cancer on MRI: added value of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists subspecialized in gynaecologic oncology. Eur Radiol 27(5):1877–1882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaku T, Tsurichi N, Tsukamoto N et al (1994) Reassessment of myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 84:979–982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ushijima K, Yahata H, Yoshikawa H, et al. Multicenter phase II study of fertility-sparing treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate for endometrialGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH et al (2013) Long-term oncologic outcomes after fertility-sparing management using oral progestin for young women with endometrial cancer (KGOG 2002). Eur J Cancer 49(4):868–874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koskas M, Uzan J, Luton D et al (2014) Prognostic factors of oncologic and reproductive outcomes in fertility-sparing management of endometrial atypical hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 101(3):785–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park JY, Lee SH, Seong SJ et al (2013) Progestin re-treatment in patients with recurrent endometrial adenocarcinoma after successful fertility-sparing management using progestin. Gynecol Oncol 129:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perri T, Korach J, Gotlieb WH et al (2011) Prolonged conservative treatment of EC patients: more than 1 pregnancy can be achieved. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matsuo K, Machida H, Shoupe D et al (2016) Ovarian conservation and overall survival in young women with early-stage low-grade endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 128(4):761–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wright JD, Jorge S, Tergas AI et al (2016) Utilization and outcomes of ovarian conservation in premenopausal women with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 127(1):101–108CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park JY, Seong SJ, Kim TJ et al (2013) Pregnancy outcomes after fertility-sparing management in young women with early EC. Obstet Gynecol 121:136–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ichinose M, Fujimoto A, Osuga Y et al (2013) The influence of infertility treatment on the prognosis of EC and atypical complex endometrial hyperplasia. Int J Gynecol Cancer 23:288–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Staff S, Aaltonen M, Huhtala H et al (2016) Endometrial cancer risk factors among Lynch syndrome women: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Cancer 115(3):375–381CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. La Russa
    • 1
  • I. Zapardiel
    • 2
  • M. J. Halaska
    • 3
    Email author
  • K. Zalewski
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • R. Laky
    • 7
  • P. Dursun
    • 8
  • D. Lindquist
    • 9
  • V. Sukhin
    • 10
  • S. Polterauer
    • 11
  • I. Biliatis
    • 12
  1. 1.Department of Gynecological Oncology, Norfolk and Norwich University HospitalNHS TrustNorwichUK
  2. 2.Gynecologic Oncology Unit, La Paz University HospitalIdiPAZMadridSpain
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 3rd Medical FacultyCharles University Prague, Faculty Hospital Kralovske VinohradyPragueCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of Gynecologic OncologyHolycross Cancer CenterKielcePoland
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Oncology, 2nd Faculty of MedicineWarsaw Medical UniversityWarsawPoland
  6. 6.Department of Molecular and Translational OncologyMaria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Institute of OncologyWarsawPoland
  7. 7.Division of GynecologyMedical University GrazGrazAustria
  8. 8.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBaskent University School of MedicineAnkaraTurkey
  9. 9.Department of Radiation SciencesUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  10. 10.Department of OncogynecologyGrigoriev Institute for Medical RadiologyKharkivUkraine
  11. 11.Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic OncologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  12. 12.Department Gynecological OncologyPoole NHS TrustPooleUK

Personalised recommendations