Comparatively analyzed quality of life in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer during various rehabilitation activities

Introduction. Radical surgery for recurrent atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) allows to fully assess pathological changes of the endometrium, a risk of concomitant cancer, and provides insight into proposing a definitive therapy. However, after ovariohysterectomy, young women develop postovariectomy syndrome (POES) and psychosexual disorders profoundly decreasing quality of life (QoL) that requires rehabilitation measures.

Aim: to conduct a comparative analysis of QoL in patients with recurrent AEH after hysterectomy with bilateral salpingooophorectomy based on the management tactics in the rehabilitation period.

Materials and Methods. In the second part of the prospective randomized comparative study, 58 women diagnosed with recurrent AEH (mean patient age 44.25 ± 3.40 years) underwent a one-year-follow-up, divided into 2 groups according to the management tactics in the rehabilitation period: group 1 – 27 patients with "active" rehabilitation according to the complex rehabilitation and therapeutic protocol proposed by our research group; group 2 – 31 patients with "passive" rehabilitation. To assess the overall QoL, a questionnaire the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Patients with Endometrial Cancer (FACT-En) was used, analyzing a level of anxiety and depressive disorders with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) as well as manifestations of surgical menopause using Kupperman–Uvarova modified menopausal index (MMI) and sexual function – with the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) on day 3–7 as well as 3, 6, 12 months after surgical treatment.

Results. It was found that inter-group difference was significant in the FACT-En questionnaire observed as early as by 3 months of the study, whereas by 12 months the QoL score in the "active" rehabilitation group increased by 39.36 points based on the FACT-En questionnaire, but only by 17.38 points in the "passive" rehabilitation cohort (p < 0.001). Analyzing Kupperman–Uvarova MMI, the degree of manifested surgical menopause decreased over time in both groups. However, as early as 6 and 12 months after onset, “active” rehabilitation was featured with surgical menopause parameters corresponding to a mild course, whereas “passive” rehabilitation was associated with moderate severity (p < 0.001). Over the entire follow-up period, "active" rehabilitation group was shown to have anxiety parameters decreased from 10.77 ± 2.36 score (subclinical anxiety) to 4.55 ± 1.50 score (normal range), whereas at 6 and 12 months of follow-up the "passive" rehabilitation group was found to have anxiety parameters corresponding to subclinical manifestations. Over time, sexual function improved in both groups, however, the parameters in the "active" vs. "passive" rehabilitation group were significantly higher as early as 3 months after the onset, with similar pattern observed at 6 and 12 months (p < 0.05).

Conclusion. The set of rehabilitation measures proposed by us improves psycho-emotional state, corrects POES manifestations, improves sexual function of AEH patients, thereby increasing overall QoL. This is comparable to the results of medical rehabilitation of women after radical treatment with endometrial cancer.

1. World Health Organization classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics. Tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Eds. F.A. Tavassoli, P. Devilee. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 2003. 247–8.

2. Reed S.D., Newton K.M., Clinton W.L. et al. Incidence of endometrial hyperplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(6):678.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.032.

3. Emons G., Beckmann M.W., Schmidt D., Mallmann P., Uterus commission of the Gynecological Oncology Working Group (AGO). New WHO classification of endometrial hyperplasias. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2015;75(2):135–6. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1396256.

4. Zaino R., Carinelli S.G., Ellenson L.H. et al. Tumours of the uterine corpus: epithelial tumours and precursors. In: WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. Eds. R.J. Kurman, M.L. Carcanglu, C.S. Herrington, R.H. Young. Geneva: WHO Press, 2014. 125–6.

5. Leitao M.M., Kehoe S., Barakat R.R. et al. Comparison of D&C and office endometrial biopsy accuracy in patients with FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(1):105–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.017.

6. Doherty M.T., Sanni O.B., Coleman H.G. et al. Concurrent and future risk of endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0232231. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232231.

7. Taşkın S., Kan Ö., Dai Ö. et al. Lymph node dissection in atypical endometrial hyperplasia. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2017;18(3):127–32. https://doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.2017.0043.

8. Vilos G.A., Oraif A., Vilos A.G. et al. Long-term clinical outcomes following resectoscopic endometrial ablation of non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(1):66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.07.009.

9. Gunderson C.C., Fader A.N., Carson K.A., Bristow R.E. Oncologic and reproductive outcomes with progestin therapy in women with endometrial hyperplasia and grade 1 adenocarcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(2):477–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.003.

10. Sandzhieva L., Idrisova L., Solopova A. et al. Endometrial cancer: the relevance of the issue and the possibility of rehabilitation. [Rak endometriya: aktual'nost' voprosa i vozmozhnosti reabilitacii]. Vrach. 2020;(2):7–12. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.29296/25877305-2020-02-02.

11. Vlasina A.V., Idrisova L.E., Solopova A.G. et al. Rehabilitation of oncogynecological patients after antitumor therapy: ways of solution. [Reabilitaciya onkoginekologicheskih bol'nyh posle protivoopuholevoj terapii: puti resheniya]. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2020;14(1):44–55. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347.2020.14.1.44-55.

12. McCarroll M.L., Armbruster S., Frasure H.E. et al. Self-efficacy, quality of life, and weight loss in overweight/obese endometrial cancer survivors (SUCCEED): a randomized controlled trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(2):397–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.12.023.

13. Sekse R.J.T., Blaaka G., Buestad I. et al. Education and counselling group intervention for women treated for gynaecological cancer: does it help? Scand J Caring Sci. 2014;28(1):112–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12024.

14. Silver J.K. Integrating rehabilitation into the cancer care continuum. PM R. 2017;9(9 Suppl 2):S291–S296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.07.075.

15. Stout N.L., Silver J.K., Alfano C.M. et al. Long-term survivorship care after cancer treatment: a new emphasis on the role of rehabilitation services. Phys Ther. 2019;99(1):10–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy115.

16. Endometrial hyperplasia. Clinical guidelines. [Giperplaziya endometriya. Klinicheskie rekomendacii]. Moscow: Ministerstvo zdravoohraneniya Rossijskoj Federacii, 2021. 19 p. (In Russ.). Available at: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/recomend/646. [Accessed: 01.08.2022].

17. Sandzhieva L.N., Solopova A.G., Blinov D.V. et al. Personalized comprehensive rehabilitation program after surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: results of a prospective randomized comparative study. [Personificirovannaya programma kompleksnoj reabilitacii posle hirurgicheskogo lecheniya raka endometriya: rezul'taty prospektivnogo randomizirovannogo sravnitel'nogo issledovaniya]. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2022;16(2):143–57. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2022.318.

18. Ferguson S.E., Panzarella T., Lau S. et al. Prospective cohort study comparing quality of life and sexual health outcomes between women undergoing robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;149(3):476–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.558.

19. Gordhandas S., Norquist B.M., Pennington K.P. et al. Hormone replacement therapy after risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations; a systematic review of risks and benefits. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153(1):192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.12.014.

20. Del Carmen M.G., Rice L.W. Management of menopausal symptoms in women with gynecologic cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146(2):427–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.06.013.

21. Whicker M., Black J., Altwerger G. et al. Management of sexuality, intimacy, and menopause symptoms in patients with ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(4):395–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.012.

22. Ferrandina G., Petrillo M., Mantegna G. et al. Evaluation of quality of life and emotional distress in endometrial cancer patients: a 2-year prospective, longitudinal study. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133(3):518–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.015.

23. Gao H., Xiao M., Bai H., Zhang Z. Sexual function and quality of life among patients with endometrial cancer after surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27(3):608–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000905.

24. Del Pup L., Villa P., Amar I.D. et al. Approach to sexual dysfunction in women with cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(3):630–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2018-000096.

25. Olsson M., Steineck G., Enskär K. et al. Sexual function in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors—a population-based study. J Cancer Surviv. 2018;12(4):450–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-018-0684-x.

26. Buckingham L., Haggerty A., Graul A. et al. Sexual function following hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A five-year follow up investigation. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152(1):139–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.025.