Endometrial cancer (EC) in young women tends to be early-stage and low-grade; therefore, such cases have good prognoses. Fertility-sparing treatment with progestin is a potential alternative to definitive treatment (i.e., total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic washing, and/or lymphadenectomy) for selected patients. However, no evidence-based consensus or guidelines yet exist, and this topic is subject to much debate. Generally, the ideal candidates for fertility-sparing treatment have been suggested to be young women with grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma confined to the endometrium. Magnetic resonance imaging should be performed to rule out myometrial invasion and extrauterine disease before initiating fertility-sparing treatment. Although various fertility-sparing treatment methods exist, including the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system, metformin, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, photodynamic therapy, and hysteroscopic resection, the most common method is high-dose oral progestin (medroxyprogesterone acetate at 500–600 mg daily or megestrol acetate at 160 mg daily). During treatment, re-evaluation of the endometrium with dilation and curettage at 3 months is recommended. Although no consensus exists regarding the ideal duration of maintenance treatment after achieving regression, it is reasonable to consider maintaining the progestin therapy until pregnancy with individualization. According to the literature, the ovarian stimulation drugs used for fertility treatments appear safe. Hysterectomy should be performed after childbearing, and hysterectomy without oophorectomy can also be considered for young women. The available evidence suggests that fertility-sparing treatment is effective and does not appear to worsen the prognosis. If an eligible patient strongly desires fertility despite the risk of recurrence, the clinician should consider fertility-sparing treatment with close follow-up.

Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dilatation and curettage (D&C) versus endometrial aspiration biopsy in follow-up evaluation of patients treated with progestin for endometrial hyperplasia (EH) Methods: A prospective multicenter study was conducted from 2015 to 2018. Patients with EH were treated with progestin, one of the following three treatment regimens: oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 10 mg/day for 14 days per cycle, continuous MPA 10 mg/day or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). At 3 or 6 months of treatment, endometrial tissues were obtained via 2 methods in each patient: aspiration biopsy, followed by D&C. The primary outcome was the consistency of the histologic results between the 2 methods. The secondary outcome was the regression rate at 6 months of treatment. Results: The study population comprised 65 patients (55 with non-atypical hyperplasia, 10 with atypical hyperplasia). During the follow-up, a comparison of the pathologic results from aspiration biopsy and D&C was carried out for the 65 cases. Thirty-eight cases were diagnosed as EH by D&C. Among these, only 24 were diagnosed with EH from aspiration biopsy, for a diagnostic concordance of 63.2% (ĸ=0.59). Forty-four patients were followed up at 6 months, and the regression rate was 31.8% (14/44). Responses were obtained for 41.7% (5/12) of the cyclic MPA group, 58.3% (7/12) of the continuous MPA group and 10% (2/20) of the LNG-IUS group. Conclusion: As a follow-up evaluation of patients treated with progestin for EH, aspiration biopsy is less accurate than D&C and might not be a reliable method.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02412072

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the cumulative recurrence rate and risk factors for recurrent abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) after surgical treatment. Materials and Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single gynecological surgery center between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients who were surgically treated and followed up for at least 6 months after surgery were selected. Results Eighteen patients with pathologically diagnosed AWE were included in this study. The median follow-up duration was 22.5 months (range, 6–106). The median age was 37 years (range, 22–48), and 33.3% of the patients were nulliparous. Among the patients included in our study, 55.6% complained of a mass with cyclic pain, and 27.8% had a palpable mass. In addition, 22.2% of patients experienced recurrence with 17.5±9.7 months of mean time to recurrence. The cumulative recurrence rates at 24 and 60 months after surgical treatment of AWE were 23.8% and 39.1%, respectively. There were no statistically significant risk factors for the recurrence of AWE, including postoperative medical treatment. Conclusion The recurrence rate of AWE appears to be correlated with the follow-up duration. There was no statistically significant risk factor for the recurrence of AWE. Unlike ovarian endometriosis, postoperative hormonal treatment does not seem to lower the recurrence of AWE. The findings of the current study may help healthcare providers in counselling and managing patients with AWE.