Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Depo-Provera Versus Norethisterone Acetate in Management of Endometrial Hyperplasia Without Atypia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess effectiveness and safety of Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) in treatment of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) and to compare it with norethisterone acetate (NETA) as an oral progestogen treatment. One hundred forty six women aged 35 to 50 years with abnormal uterine bleeding and diagnosed as having EH were randomized to receive either Depo-Provera, one injection every 3 months for 6 months (2 doses), or oral cyclic NETA, 15 mg daily for 14 days per cycle for 6 months. Primary outcome measure was regression of EH. Secondary outcome variables were side effects of treatment, persistence/progression of EH during follow-up period. After 6 months of treatment, Depo-Provera was more successful in achieving regression of nonatypical EH than NETA (67 [91.8%] of 73 women vs 49 [67.1%] of 73, respectively), and the difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant (relative risk: 1.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.63, P = .048*). Adverse effects were relatively common with moderate differences between the 2 groups. This is the first randomized study comparing Depo-Provera with an oral progestogen as a treatment for EH. Depo-Provera is an effective and safe treatment for EH without atypia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Epplein M, Reed SD, Voigt LF, Newton KW, Holt VL, Weiss NS. Endometrial hyperplasia risk in relation to characteristics and exposures that influence endogenous hormone levels. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 168(6):563–570.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Reed SD, Voigt LF, Newton KM, et al. Progestin therapy of complex endometrial hyperplasia with and without atypia. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113(3):655–662.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Espíndola D, Kennedy KA, Fischer EG. Management of abnormal uterine bleeding and the pathology of endometrial hyperplasia. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2007; 34(4):717–737.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Anastasiadis PG, Skaphida PG, Koutlaki NG, Galazios GC, Tsikouras PN, Liberis VA. Descriptive epidemiology of endometrial hyperplasia in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2000; 21(2):131–134.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lacey JV Jr, Chia VM. Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of progression to carcinoma. Maturitas. 2009; 63(1):39–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marsden DE, Hacker NF. Optimal management of endometrial hyperplasia. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001; 15(3):393–405.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gunderson CC, Fader AN, Carson KA, Bristow RE. Oncologic and reproductive outcomes with progestin therapy in women with endometrial hyperplasia and grade I adenocarcinoma:a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 125(2):477–482.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gultekin M, Dogan NU, Aksan G, Ozgul N. Management of endometrial hyperplasia. Minerva Ginecol. 2010; 62(5):433–445.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eddib A, AUaf B, Lee J, Yeh J. Risk for advanced-stage endometrial cancer in surgical specimens from patients with complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012; 73(1):38–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Clark TJ, Neelakantan D, Gupta JK. The management of endometrial hyperplasia:an evaluation of current practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006; 125(2):259–264.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R, et al. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia:a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2006; 106(4):812–819.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin, clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists, number 65, August 2005:management of endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106(2):413–425.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Abu-Hashim H, Zayed A, Ghayaty E, El Rakhawy M. LNG-IUS treatment of non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia in perimeno-pausal women:a randomized controlled trial. J Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 24(2):128–134.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hom LC, Schnurrbusch U, BilekK, Hentschel B, Einenkel J. Risk of progression in complex and atypical endometrial hyperplasia:clinicopathologic analysis in cases with and without progestogen treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004; 14(2):348–353.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Orbo A, Vereide AB, Ames M, Pettersen I, Straume B. Levonorgestrel-impregnated intrauterine device as treatment for endometrial hyperplasia:a national multicentre randomised trial. BJOG. 2014; 121(4):477–486.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bese T, Vural A, Ozturk M, et al. The effect of long-term use of progesterone therapy on proliferation and apoptosis in simple endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006; 16(2):809–813.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Westhoff C. Depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (Depo-Provera):a highly effective contraceptive option with proven long-term safety. Contraception. 2003; 68(2):75–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Haider S, Damey F. Injectable contraception. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 50(4):898–806.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long-acting reversible contraception. NICE guidelines [CG30] October 2005. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg30/guidance/cg30. Accessed December 15, 2015.

  20. El Behery MM, Saleh HS, Ibrahiem MA, Kamal EM, Kassem GA, Mohamed Mohamed ME. Levonorgestrel-Releasing intrauterine device versus dydrogesterone for management of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Reprod Sci. 2015; 22(3):329–334.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vereide AB, Ames M, Straume B, Maltau JM, Orbo A. Nuclear morphometric changes and therapy monitoring in patients with endometrial hyperplasia:a study comparing effects of intrauterine levonorgestrel and systemic medroxyprogesterone. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 91(3):526–533.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gallos ID, Krishan P, Shehmar M, Ganesan R, Gupta JK. Relapse of endometrial hyperplasia after conservative treatment:a cohort study with long-term follow-up. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(5):1231–1236.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Buttini MJ, Jordan SJ, Webb PM. The effect of the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system on endometrial hyperplasia:an Australian study and systematic review. Aust N ZJ Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 49(3):316–322.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schrager S. Abnormal uterine bleeding associated with hormonal contraception. Am Fam Physician. 2002; 65(10):2073–2081.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Haoula ZJ, Walker KF, Powell MC. Levonorgestrel intrauterine system as a treatment option for complex endometrial hyperplasia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 159(1):176–179.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gallos ID, Shehmar M, Thangaratinam S, Papapostolou TK, Coo-marasamy A, Gupta JK. Oral progestogens vs levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for endometrial hyperplasia:a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203(6)547.e1–e10.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Demirkiran F, Yavuz E, Erenel H, Bese T, Arvas M, Sanioglu C. Which is the best technique for endometrial sampling? Aspiration (pipelle) versus dilatation and curettage (D&C). Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286(5):1277–1282.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zaino RJ, Kauderer J, Trimble CL, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia:a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2006; 106:804–811.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gallos ID, Ofinran O, Shehmar M, Coomarasamy A, Gupta JK. Current management of endometrial hyperplasia-a survey of United Kingdom consultant gynaecologists. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 158(2):305–307.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Zagazig University Students’ Hospital, Zagazig, Egypt

    Ahmed Nooh MBBCH, MS, FRCSEd, MD

  2. Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Zagazig University Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig, Egypt

    Hussein Abdeldayem MBBCH, MS, MD, Ehab F. Girbash MBBCH, MS, MD & Essa M. Arafa MBBCH, MS, MD

  3. Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Suez Canal University Faculty of Medicine, Ismailia, Egypt

    Khalid Atwa MBBCH, MS, MD

  4. Pathology Department, Zagazig University Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig, Egypt

    Samar M. Abdel-Raouf MBBCH, MSc, PhD

Authors
  1. Ahmed Nooh MBBCH, MS, FRCSEd, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hussein Abdeldayem MBBCH, MS, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ehab F. Girbash MBBCH, MS, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Essa M. Arafa MBBCH, MS, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Khalid Atwa MBBCH, MS, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Samar M. Abdel-Raouf MBBCH, MSc, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Nooh MBBCH, MS, FRCSEd, MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nooh, A., Abdeldayem, H., Girbash, E.F. et al. Depo-Provera Versus Norethisterone Acetate in Management of Endometrial Hyperplasia Without Atypia. Reprod. Sci. 23, 448–454 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719115623643

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719115623643

Keywords

Search

Navigation