Best Practice Recommendations for Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia/Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia in the...

Endometrial cancer is the most prevalent gynecologic cancer in the United States and has rising incidence and mortality. Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (EIN-AEH), a precancerous neoplasm, is surgically managed with hysterectomy in patients who have completed childbearing because of risk of progression to cancer. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma (EC) is also present on hysterectomy specimens in up to 50% of cases. Conservative medical management with progestins and close surveillance can be employed for certain populations after evaluating for concurrent EC. Currently, national professional guidelines recommend an individualized approach based on community access to care and patient factors. There is, however, no US civilian consensus on who should primarily manage EIN-AEH: Physician gynecologic specialists (GSs) and/or gynecologic oncologist (GO) subspecialists. Military health care presents an additional challenge with beneficiaries stationed at remote or overseas locations. While patients may not have local access to a GO subspecialist, many locations are staffed with GSs. Travel for care with a GO incurs additional cost for the patient and the military health care system, removes patients from local support systems, and can impact mission readiness. To provide the best care, optimize clinical outcomes, and avoid over- or under-treatment, military-specific guidelines for EIN-AEH management are needed. We propose a clinical decision tree incorporating both GS and GO subspecialists in the care of military beneficiaries with EIN-AEH. The subject matter expert panel recommends referral of EIN-AEH to a military (preferrable) or civilian GO for management if local access is available within 100 miles[Q1] . If travel of >100 miles is required, the patient should be offered the choice of a military GO referral if available within 250 miles (preferred) versus management by a GS. If travel is >100 miles from a GO or the patient declines a GO referral, the panel recommends that the GS should attempt to exclude concurrent EC by performing a hysteroscopic assessment of the endometrium with a directed biopsy, if not already done. A pelvic ultrasound should be obtained to evaluate the endometrial thickness (>2 cm more likely to harbor EC) along with a secondary gynecologic pathology review with immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) and p53 expression. If any major additional risk factors are uncovered, the patient should be referred to a GO subspecialist for further management. If no additional major risk factors for concurrent EC are identified and hysteroscopy with expert gynecologic pathology review confirms no presence of EC in the pathology specimen, a virtual consultation and counseling with a military GO can be offered, with local surgical and/or medical management provided by a GS. If on subsequent pathology, EC is identified, the patient should be referred to a GO for further treatment considerations and counseling. Determining the optimal treatment for patients with EIN-AEH is nuanced and, within the military health care system, is complicated by varied access to expert management by a GO subspecialist. Military beneficiaries with this diagnosis present a unique challenge and warrant a standardized approach to maximize clinical outcomes.