Endometrial cancer: modern concepts of screening

  • Authors: Protasova AE1,2,3,4, Sobivchak MS1,5, Bayramova NN1,4, Glushakov RI6, Tapil’skaya NI7
  • Affiliations:
    1. Saint Petersburg State University
    2. North-Western State Medical University n.a. I.I. Mechnikov
    3. Almazov National Medical Research Centre
    4. LLC “AVA-PETER”
    5. Road Clinical Hospital JSC “Russian Railways”
    6. Military Medical Academy n.a. S.M. Kirov
    7. The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology n.a. D.O. Ott
  • Issue: Vol 100, No 4 (2019)
  • Pages: 662-672
  • Section: Reviews
  • URL: https://kazanmedjournal.ru/kazanmedj/article/view/15552
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/KMJ2019-662


Currently endometrial cancer remains a pressing issue for public health worldwide. Every year there is a steady increase in morbidity rates, which is associated with an increase in the prevalence of risk factors for the disease among which “non-steroid triad” is prevalent: obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome. Other significant risk factors for endometrial cancer include the long-term use of tamoxifen and the presence of Lynch syndrome, which makes it possible to carry out selective screening of the disease in these groups of patients. Endometrial cancer is a symptomatic disease, the main clinical manifestation of which is the bleeding from the genital tract on the background of postmenopause. In this case, with timely diagnostic measures, the disease is diagnosed in more than 80% of cases in the early stages of the tumor process, in which the results of treatment are satisfactory. However, despite years of research, questions remain about the relevance and feasibility of population and selective screening for uterine cancer, the ultimate goal of which is to reduce mortality from this disease in a population. Endometrial biopsy and ultrasound of the pelvic organs are considered as the main screening methods, however, the effectiveness of these methods as a population screening is limited. Unreasonable tests lead to overdiagnosis of the disease, invasive interventions increase the risk of the development of predictable complications. This review of the literature contains current information on factors that increase and decrease the risk of endometrial cancer and the results of scientific research on endometrial cancer screening. This information will allow the doctor to choose a rational tactic for managing each particular patient with various risk factors for endometrial cancer and to avoid unnecessary invasive interventions.

A E Protasova

Saint Petersburg State University; North-Western State Medical University n.a. I.I. Mechnikov; Almazov National Medical Research Centre; LLC “AVA-PETER”

Email: glushakovruslan@gmal.com
Saint-Petersburg, Russia; Saint-Petersburg, Russia; Saint-Petersburg, Russia; Saint-Petersburg, Russia

M S Sobivchak

Saint Petersburg State University; Road Clinical Hospital JSC “Russian Railways”

Email: glushakovruslan@gmal.com
Saint-Petersburg, Russia; Saint-Petersburg, Russia

N N Bayramova

Saint Petersburg State University; LLC “AVA-PETER”

Email: glushakovruslan@gmal.com
Saint-Petersburg, Russia; Saint-Petersburg, Russia

R I Glushakov

Military Medical Academy n.a. S.M. Kirov

Author for correspondence.
Email: glushakovruslan@gmal.com
Saint-Petersburg, Russia

N I Tapil’skaya

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology n.a. D.O. Ott

Email: glushakovruslan@gmal.com
Saint-Petersburg, Russia

  1. Kim M., Suh D.H., Lee K.H. et al. Major clinical research advances in gynecologic cancer in 2018. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019; 30 (2): e18. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e18.
  2. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines). Uterine Neoplasms. Version 1.2019. https://docplayer.net/24768673-Uterine-neoplasms-nccn-clinical-practice-guidelines-in-oncology-nccn-guidelines-version-nccn-org-continue.html (access date: 15.04.2019). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/#detection.
  3. Staples J.N., Duska L.R. Cancer screening and prevention highlights in gynecologic cancer. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North Am. 2019; 46 (1): 19–36. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2018.09.002.
  4. Kaprin A.D., Starinskiy V.V., Petrova G.V. Zlokachestvennye novoobrazovaniya v Rossii v 2017 g. (zabolevaemost' i smertnost'). (Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2017 (morbidity and mortality).) Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena — filial FGBU “NMITs radiologii” Minzrdava Rossii. 2018; 236 p. (In Russ.)
  5. Colombo N., Creutzberg C., Amant F. et al. ­ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Endometrial Consensus Conference Working Group. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Confe­rence on Endometrial Cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2016; 27 (1): 16–41. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv484.
  6. Nechushkina V.M., Dengina N.V. Kolomiets L.A. et al. Practical re­commendations RUSSCO. Practical recommendations for the treatment of uterine cancer and uterine sarcomas. Zlo­kachestvennye opukholi. 2018; 8: 190–203. (In Russ.)
  7. McDonald M.E., Bender D.P. Endometrial cancer: obesity, genetics, and targeted agents. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North Am. 2019; 46 (1): 89–105. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2018.09.006.
  8. American Cancer Society. Endometrial cancer. Available online. DOI: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/endometrial-cancer.html.
  9. Braun M.M., Overbeek-Wager E.A., Grumbo R.J. Diagnosis and management of endometrial cancer. Am. Family Phys. 2016, 93 (6), 468–474. PMID: 26977831.
  10. Setiawan V.W., Yang H.P., Pike M.C. et al. Type I and II endometrial cancers: have they different risk factors? J. Clin. Oncol. 2013; 31 (20): 2607–2618. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.2596.
  11. Alcázar J.L., Bonilla L., Marucco J. et al. Risk of endometrial cancer and endometrial hyperplasia with aty­pia in asymptomatic postmenopausal women with endometrial thickness ≥11 mm: a systematic review and meta-ana­lysis. J. Clin. Ultrasound. 2018; 46 (9): 565–570. doi: 10.1002/jcu.22631.
  12. Di Marco M., DAndrea E., Panic N. et al. Which Lynch syndrome screening programs could be implemen­ted in the “real world”? A systematic review of econo­mic evaluations. Genet. Med. 2018; 20 (10): 1131–1144. doi: 10.1038/gim.2017.244.
  13. Raffone A., Travaglino A., Saccone G. et al. Loss of PTEN expression as diagnostic marker of endometrial precancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta. Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2019; 98 (3): 275–286. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13513.
  14. Sjögren L.L., Morch L.S., Lokkegaard E. Hormone replacement therapy and the risk of endometrial cancer: A systematic review. Maturitas. 2016; 91: 25–35. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.05.013.
  15. Fadeeva E.P., Lisyanskaya A.S., Manikhas G.M. et al. Aromatase inhibitors of the third generation in endocrine therapy of breast cancer and endometrial cancer: the successes and failures of the combination therapy. Obzory po klinicheskoy farmakologii i lekarstvennoy terapii. 2016; 14 (2): 47–57. (In Russ.)
  16. Hrstka R., Podhorec J., Nenutil R. et al. Tamo­xifen-dependent induction of AGR2 is ­associated with increased aggressiveness of endometrial cancer cells. Cancer Invest. 2017; 35 (5): 313–324. doi: 10.1080/­07357907.2017.1309546.
  17. Tapil'skaya N.I., Glushakov R.I. Folate-fortified hormonal contraceptives in the strategy of primary prevention of cancer among women of reproductive age (a review). Problemy Reproduktsii. 2018; 24 (6): 51–60. (In Russ.)
  18. Potter B., Schrager S., Dalby J. Menopause. Prim. Care. 2018; 45 (4): 625–641. doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2018.08.001.
  19. Mitamura T., Dong P., Ihira K. et al. Molecular-targeted therapies and precision medicine for endometrial cancer. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019; 49 (2): 108–120. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyy159.
  20. Yokoyama T., Takehara K., Sugimoto N. et al. Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial carcinoma with MLH1 germline mutation and MLH1 promoter hyperme­thylation: a case report and literature review. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18 (1): 576. doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-4489-0.
  21. Korkhov V.V., Tapil’skaya N.I. Gestageny v akushersko-ginekologi­cheskoy praktike. Rukovodstvo dlya vrachey. (Progestins in obstetric and gynecological practice. A guide for doctors.) Saint-Petersburg: SpetsLit. 2005; 141 p. (In Russ.)
  22. Yakushevskaya O.V., Yureneva S.V., Protasova A.E. et al. Menopausal hormone therapy and ute­rine cancer: the acceptability of the tandem. Ginekologiya. 2018; 20 (6): 42–47. (In Russ.)
  23. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice. ACOG commit­tee opinion. No. 601: Tamoxifen and uterine cancer. Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 123 (6): 1394–1397. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000450757.18294.cf.
  24. Cuzick J., Forbes J.F., Sestak I. et al. Long-term results of tamoxifen prophylaxis for breast cancer — 96-month follow-up of the randomized IBIS-I trial. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007; 99 (4): 272–282. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djk049.
  25. American college of obstetricians and gynecologists committee on gynecologic practice. ACOG committee opinion. No. 634: Hereditary cancer syndromes and risk assessment. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 125 (6): 1538–1543. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000466373.71146.51.
  26. Ladabaum U., Wang G., Terdiman J. et al. Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann. In­tern. Med. 2011; 155: 69–79. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00002.
  27. Wang G., Kuppermann M., Kim B. et al. Influence of patient preferences on the cost-effectiveness of scree­ning for Lynch syndrome. J. Oncol. Pract. 2012; 8 (suppl. 3): e24s–e30s. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000535.
  28. Barzi A., Sadeghi S., Kattan M.W., Meropol N.J. Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for Lynch syndrome. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2015; 107: djv005. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv005.
  29. Leenen C.H., Goverde A., de Bekker-Grob E.W. et al. Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients up to 70 years of age. Genet. Med. 2016; 18: 966–973. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.206.
  30. Severin F., Stollenwerk B., Holinski-Feder E. et al. Economic evaluation of genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in Germany. Genet. Med. 2015; 17: 765–73. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.190.
  31. Assasi N., Blackhouse G., Campbell K. DNA Mismatch repair deficiency tumour testing for patients with colorectal cancer: a health technology assessment. Canadian Agency for Drugs, Technologies in Health. Optimal Use Report, vol. 5, no. 3b. Ottawa, Canada, 2016. PMID: 27631047.
  32. Burk J.R., Lehman H.F., Wolf F.S. Inadequacy of papanicolaou smears in the detection of endometrial cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 1974; 291 (4): 191–192. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197407252910408.
  33. Smith R.A., von Eschenbach A.C., Wender R. et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: update 2001 — testing for early lung cancer detection. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2001; 51: 38–75. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.51.1.38.
  34. Smith R.A., Andrews K.S., Brooks D. et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018; 68 (4): 297–316. doi: 10.3322/caac.21446.
  35. Cronin K.A., Lake A.J., Scott S. et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part I: National cancer statistics. Cancer. 2018; 124 (13): 2785–2800. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31551.
  36. Fleischer A.C., Wheeler J.E., Lindsay I. et al. An assessment of the value of ultrasonographic screening for endometrial disease in postmenopausal women without symptoms. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2001; 184 (2): 70–75. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.111088.
  37. Gemer O., Segev Y., Helpman L. et al. Is there a survival advantage in diagnosing endometrial cancer in asym­ptomatic postmenopausal patients? An Israeli Gynecology Oncology Group study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 219 (2), 181.e1–181.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.05.013.
  38. Gull B., Karlsson B., Milsom I., Granberg S. Can ultrasound replace dilation and curettage? A longitudinal evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding and transvaginal sonographic measurement of the endometrium as predictors of endometrial cancer. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003; 188 (2): 401–408. doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.154.
  39. Wong A.S., Lao T.T., Cheung C.W. et al. Reappraisal of endometrial thickness for the detection of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal bleeding: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 2016; 123: 439–446. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13342.
  40. American college of obstetricians and gynecologists committee on gynecologic practice. ACOG committee opinion No. 734: The role of transvaginal ultrasonography in evaluating the endometrium of women with postmenopausal bleeding. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 131 (734): e124–e129. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002631.
  41. Clark T.J., Voit D., Gupta J.K. et al. Accuracy of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and hyperplasia: a systematic quantitative review. JAMA. 2002; 288 (13): 1610–1621. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.13.1610.
  42. Shaw E., Farris M., McNeil J., Friedenreich C. Obesity and endometrial cancer. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2016; 208: 107–136. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-42542-9_7.
  43. Vorobyev A.V., Protasova A.E. Common screening questions. Prakticheskaya onkologiya. 2010; 11 (2): 53–59. (In Russ.)
  44. Fishman M., Mona B., Sheiner E. et al. Changes in the sonographic appearance of the uterus after disconti­nuation of tamoxifen therapy. J. Ultrasound Med. 2006; 25: 469–73. doi: 10.7863/jum.2006.25.4.469.
  45. Cheng W.F., Lin H.H., Torng P.L., Huang S.C. Comparison of endometrial changes among symptomatic tamo­xifen-treated and nontreated premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Gynecol. Oncol. 1997; 66 (2): 233–237. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1997.4739.
  46. Fung M.F., Reid A., Faught W. et al. Prospective longitudinal study of ultrasound screening for endometrial abnormalities in women with breast cancer recei­ving tamoxifen. Gynecol. Oncol. 2003; 91 (1): 154–159. doi: 10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00441-4.
  47. Sadro C.T. Imaging the endometrium: a pictorial essay. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2016; 67 (3): 254–262. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2015.09.012.
  48. Langer R.D., Simon J.A., Pines A. Menopau­sal hormone therapy for primary prevention: why the USPSTF is wrong. Climacteric. 2017; 20 (5): 402–413. doi: 10.1080/13697137.2017.1362156.
  49. Aas-Eng M.K., Langebrekke A., Hudelist G. Complications in operative hysteroscopy — is prevention possible? Acta. Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2017; 96 (12): 1399–1403. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13209.
  50. Critchley H.O., Warner P., Lee A.J. et al. Evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding: comparison of three outpatient procedures within cohorts defined by age and menopausal status. Health Technol. Assess. 2004; 8 (34): 1–139. doi: 10.3310/hta8340.


Abstract - 27

PDF (Russian) - 20



© 2019 Protasova A.E., Sobivchak M.S., Bayramova N.N., Glushakov R.I., Tapil’skaya N.I.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Свидетельство о регистрации СМИ ЭЛ № ФС 77-75008 от 1 февраля 2019 года выдано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор)