Clinical Review

2019 Update on abnormal uterine bleeding

Howard T. Sharp, MD

Dr. Sharp is Professor and Vice Chair for Clinical Activities, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City.

Marisa R. Adelman, MD

Dr. Adelman is Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center.

The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.

These experts discuss the factors that incur increased risk for malignant endometrial polyps, the relationship between chronic endometritis and endometrial polyps, whether the etonogestrel subdermal implant can treat EIN, and new endometrial ablation technology


 

References

Keeping current with causes of and treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is important. AUB can have a major impact on women’s lives in terms of health care expenses, productivity, and quality of life. The focus of this Update is on information that has been published over the past year that is helpful for clinicians who counsel and treat women with AUB. First, we focus on new data on endometrial polyps, which are a common cause of AUB. For the first time, a meta-analysis has examined polyp-associated cancer risk. In addition, does a causal relationship exist between endometrial polyps and chronic endometritis? We also address the first published report of successful treatment of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN, formerly complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia) using the etonogestrel subdermal implant. Last, we discuss efficacy data for a new device for endometrial ablation, which has new features to consider.

What is the risk of malignancy with endometrial polyps?

Sasaki LM, Andrade KR, Figeuiredo AC, et al. Factors associated with malignancy in hysteroscopically resected endometrial polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:777-785.


In the past year, 2 studies have contributed to our understanding of endometrial polyps, with one published as the first ever meta-analysis on polyp risk of malignancy.

What can information from more than 21,000 patients with polyps teach us about the risk factors associated with endometrial malignancy? For instance, with concern over balancing health care costs with potential surgical risks, should all patients with endometrial polyps undergo routine surgical removal, or should we stratify risks and offer surgery to only selected patients? This is the first meta-analysis to evaluate the risk factors for endometrial cancer (such as obesity, parity, tamoxifen use, and hormonal therapy use) in patients with endometrial polyps.

Risk factors for and prevalence of malignancy

Sasaki and colleagues found that about 3 of every 100 patients with recognized polyps will harbor a premalignant or malignant lesion (3.4%; 716 of 21,057 patients). The identified risk factors for a cancerous polyp included: menopausal status, age greater than 60 years, presence of AUB, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, and tamoxifen use. The risk for cancer was 2-fold greater in women older than 60 years compared with those younger than age 60 (prevalence ratio, 2.41). The authors found no risk association with use of combination hormone therapy, parity, breast cancer, or polyp size.

The investigators advised caution with using their conclusions, as there was high heterogeneity for some of the factors studied (including age, AUB, parity, and hypertension).

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

The study takeaways regarding clinical and demographic risk factors suggest that menopausal status, age greater than 60 years, the presence of AUB, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and tamoxifen use have an increased risk for premalignant and malignant lesions.

This study is important because its findings will better enable physicians to inform and counsel patients about the risks for malignancy associated with endometrial polyps, which will better foster discussion and joint decision-making about whether or not surgery should be performed.

New evidence associates endometrial polyps with chronic endometritis

Cicinelli E, Bettocchi S, de Ziegler D, et al. Chronic endometritis, a common disease hidden behind endometrial polyps in premenopausal women: first evidence from a case-control study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019. S1553-4550(19)30056-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.01.012.

The second important study published this year on polyps was conducted by Cicinelli and colleagues and suggests that inflammation may be part of the pathophysiology behind the common problem of polyps. The authors cite a recent study that showed that abnormal expression of "local" paracrine inflammatory mediators, such as interferon-gamma, may enhance the proliferation of endometrial mucosa.1 Building on this possibility further, they hypothesized that chronic endometrial inflammation may affect the pathogenesis of endometrial polyps.

Details of the study

To investigate the possible correlation between polyps and chronic endometritis, Cicinelli and colleagues compared the endometrial biopsies of 240 women with AUB and hysteroscopically and histologically diagnosed endometrial polyps with 240 women with AUB and no polyp seen on hysteroscopy. The tissue samples were evaluated with immunohistochemistry for CD-138 for plasma cell identification.

The study authors found a significantly higher prevalence of chronic endometritis in the group with endometrial polyps than in the group without polyps (61.7% vs 24.2%, respectively; P <.0001). They suggest that this evidence supports the hypothesis that endometrial polyps may be a result of endometrial proliferation and vasculopathy triggered by chronic endometritis.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
The significance of this study is that there is a possible causal relationship between endometrial polyps and chronic endometritis, which may expand the options for endometrial polyp therapy beyond surgical management in the future.

Continue to: Can endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia be treated with the etonogestrel subdermal implant?

Next Article: