SynthesisBMC women's health2026
Fertility-preserving treatment for endometrial atypical hyperplasia and endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe incidence of endometrial cancer is rising, especially among younger women. Given the strong need to preserve fertility, robust evidence is required to evaluate the effectiveness of progestin-based fertility-preserving treatment regimens. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the oncological and reproductive outcomes of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) and endometrial atypical hyperplasia patients (EAH) undergoing progestin-based therapies, and to compare outcomes across different fertility-preserving treatment regimens.
methodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify relevant studies published online up to 2 Apr 2025. This proportional meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to combine the data. A checklist based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies was used for quality assessment. The primary outcomes for this meta-analysis were complete response, pregnancy rate, and live birth rate following fertility-preserving treatment in patients with EC or AH. The secondary outcomes are was the recurrence rate (RR). Cochran’s Q test and I2 were used to evaluate the degree of heterogeneity of eligible studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed with the leave-one-out strategy. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s test.
resultsOf 1332 identified studies, 54 were included in the final analysis. Including 2148 patients with endometrial cancer and 1418 with endometrial atypical hyperplasia. For patients with EC, 78% achieved complete response (CR). Patients treated with LNG-IUD alone had the highest CR rate (85%). Among patients who achieved CR and contempt to conceive, 60% achieved clinical pregnancy and 57% achieved live delivery. While about 1/3 patients will undergoing relapse (33%). For patients with EAH, 87% achieved CR, 48% achieved pregnancy and 37% achieved live delivery, while approximately one-fifth experienced relapse (22%). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated robust results.
conclusionDifferent progestin-based therapy regimens are effective for fertility preservation in patients with EC and EAH. The results of this meta-analysis may inform clinical management and support personalized treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.