International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 163–169 | Cite as

Study on the long-term follow-up of endometrial hyperplasia

  • Toshiko Jobo
  • Kazuhio Tateoka
  • Hiroyuki Kuramoto
Original Article



A follow-up study of patients with endometrial hyperplasias was performed in order to clarify whether or not hyperplasias were precursor lesions of endometrial carcinoma in a Japanese population.


One hundred and seventy-one patients with various endometrial hyperplasias; 88 with simple, 57 with complex, 12 with simple atypical, and 14 with complex atypical hyperplasias were followed up to evaluate the fate of the lesions as well as their clinical features. The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 195 months (mean, 46).


The patient ages at the time of the initial diagnosis ranged from 27 to 55 years (mean, 44.5) with simple, 16 to 60 (mean, 43.8) with complex, 33 to 53 (mean, 44.8) with simple atypical, and 29 to 50 (mean, 39.7) with complex atypical hyperplasias. More than 85% of the patients complained of metrorrhagia. Menstrual cycles were irregular in 40% of the cases. Cyclic ovulatory phases measured with basal body temperature were observed in 33.9% of patients with simple, 25.6% with complex, and 22.2% with simple atypical, whereas these were only seen in 8.3% of the cases with complex atyical hyperplasia. Ovulatory disturbances were found in more than 65% of the patients with increasing frequency, depending on the severity of hyperplasia. Only 1 (1.1%) of 88 simple, 1 (3.5%) of 57 complex, and 1 (8.1%) of 12 simple atypical cases progressed to endometrial carcinoma, whereas 3 (21.4%) complex atypical cases progressed to endometrial carcinoma. The incidence of complex atypical is significantly higher than in the former two (P<0.001,P<0.05). The 7 patients who progressed to carcinoma had been followed for 16 to 73 months (mean, 38). Their histological type was either G1, G2 or adenoacanthoma and their FIGO surgical stage was l in all cases. The progression rates of the patients treated with or without cyclic medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) were 3.7% and 4.4% respectively, showing no significant differences. The regression rates of each hyperplasia to normal endometrium were 69.4% with simple, 68.4% with complex, 75.0% with simple atypical, and 57.2% with complex atyical hyperplasias.


Endometrial hyperplasias, especially complex atypical are the precursors to endometrial carcinoma. The strict follow-up of patients with endometrial hyperplasia is mandatory.

Key words

endometrial hyperplasia follow-up malignant progression endometrial carcinoma medroxyprogesterone acetate 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hertig AT, Sommers SC. Genesis of endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 1949;2:946–956.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sherman AI, Brown S. The precursors of endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979;135:947–956.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang SJ, Amparo EG, Fu YS. Endometrial hyperplasia. Surg Pathol 1988;1:215–229.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurman JR, Kaminski PF, Norris HJ. The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia. Cancer 1985;56:403–412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell PE, Barter RA. The significance of atypical hyperplasia. J Obstet Gynecol Br Com 1961;68:668–672.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chamlian DL, Taylor HB. Endometrial hyperplasia in young women. Obstet Gynecol 1970;36:659–666.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wentz WB. Treatment of persistent hyperplasia with progestin. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966;96:999–1004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tavassoli F, Kraus F. Endometrial lesions in uteri resected for atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Am J Clin Pathol 1978;70:770–779.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferenczy A, Gelfand M. The biologic significance of cytologic atypia in progestogen-treated endometrial hyperplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:126–131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jobo T, Ohkawara S, Morisawa T, Kuramoto H, Nishijima M. Borderline lesions of endometrial carcinoma and their cytological features. J Jpn Soc Clin Cytol 1992;31:11–20.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jobo T, Ohkawara S, Hayasi R, Morisawa T, Ohno E, Kuramoto H, Nishijima M. Clinicopathological analysis of well differentiated adenocarcinoma. Pathol Clin 1992;10:413–419 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuramoto H, Jobo T, Hata H, Ohkawara S Endometrial hyperplasia co-existent with the carcinoma. J Jpn Soc Gynecol Pathol Colpo 1989;7:179–184 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yokosuka K, Teshima H, Yamakawa Y, Hasumi K. Characteristic of cystic glandular hyperplasia as a precursor of endometrial carcinoma. Acta Obst Gynaec Jpn 1994;46:1241–1246.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gusberg S, Kaplan AL. Precursors of corpus cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1963;87:662–678.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Japanese Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Japanese Society of Pathology, Japan Radiological Society. The general rules for clinical and pathological management of uterine corpus cancer, 1996:44–45.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McBride JM. Pre-menopausal cystic hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma. J Obstet Gynecol Br Emp 1959;66:288–296.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yamabe T. Report of the Cancer Screening Committee of Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Acta Obst Gynaec Jpn 1990;42:535–538 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jobo T, Ohkawara S, Kuramoto H, Nishijima M. Clinicopathological analysis on 7 cases with endometrial hyperplasia progressed adenocarcinoma. J Jpn Soc Cancer Ther 1994;29:1811–1818.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ettinger B, Golditch IM, Friedman G. Gynecologic consequences of long-term, unopposed estrogen replacement therapy. Maturitas 1988;10:271–282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Whitehead MI, Hillard TC, Crook D. The role and use of progestogens. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:59–76.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gambrell RD, Massey FM, Castaneda TA, Ugenas AJ, Ricci CA, Wright JM. Use of the progestogen challenge test to reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1980;55:732–738.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jobo T, Kamikatahira S, Iwaya H, Satoh R, Kuramoto H, Nishijima M. A clinical and pathological study of granulosa cell tumor of the ovary. J Jpn Soc Gynecol Pathol Colpo 1994;12:179–186.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    DiSaia PJ, Creasman WT. Clinical Gynecologic Oncology. St. Louis,: Mosby Year Book, 1993:134–135.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toshiko Jobo
    • 1
  • Kazuhio Tateoka
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Kuramoto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of MedicineKitasato UniversitySagamihara, KanagawaJapan

Personalised recommendations