ACOG Menu

Management of Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia

  • Clinical Consensus CC
  • Number 5
  • September 2023

Number 5 (Replaces Committee Opinion Number 631, May 2015)

Committee on Clinical Consensus–Gynecology. This Clinical Consensus was developed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Clinical Consensus–Gynecology in collaboration with Lori Boardman, MD, Akiva P. Novetsky, MD MS, and Fidel Valea, MD.

The Society of Gynecologic Oncology endorses this document.


Summary: Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) often is a precursor lesion to adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment for EIN–AEH. When a conservative (fertility-sparing) approach to the management of EIN–AEH is under consideration, it is important to attempt to exclude the presence of endometrial cancer to avoid potential undertreatment of an unknown malignancy in those who have been already diagnosed with EIN–AEH. Given the high risk of progression to cancer, those who do not have surgery require progestin therapy (oral, intrauterine, or combined) and close surveillance. Although data are conflicting and limited, studies have demonstrated that treatment with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device results in a higher regression rate when compared with treatment with oral progestins alone. Limited data suggest that cyclic progestational agents have lower regression rates when compared with continuous oral therapy. After initial conservative treatment for EIN–AEH, early detection of disease persistence, progression, or recurrence requires careful follow-up. Gynecologists and other clinicians should counsel patients that lifestyle modification resulting in weight loss and glycemic control can improve overall health and may decrease the risk of EIN–AEH and endometrial cancer.


Background

Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH), depending on classification system used, is of clinical significance because often it is a precursor lesion to adenocarcinoma of the endometrium 1 2. There currently are two systems of endometrial precancer nomenclature in common usage. The WHO94 schema, which proposed four categories of risk classification based on glandular complexity and nuclear atypia, was updated in 2014 to a two-tiered system: 1) hyperplasia without atypia (benign endometrial hyperplasia) and 2) atypical hyperplasia or EIN 3 4 5. Subsequently, the 2020 World Health Organization classification expanded on the diagnostic criteria in the two-tiered system to include essential and desirable criteria 6. Essential criteria for atypical hyperplasia or EIN include crowded glandular architecture and altered epithelial cytology distinct from the surrounding endometrium or entrapped nonneoplastic glands or both. Desirable criteria include the following: loss of immunoreactivity for PTEN, PAX2, or mismatch repair proteins. In the EIN schema developed by the International Endometrial Collaborative Group, endometrial precancer is termed endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, and pathologic criteria were used to develop three disease categories: 1) endometrial hyperplasia, 2) endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, and 3) adenocarcinoma 7. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not recommend one terminology schema over another. This topic has been updated to reflect newer data on the management of EIN–AEH. This guidance applies to those patients who have already received a diagnosis of EIN–AEH.

Epidemiology

Estrogenic stimulation of the endometrium, unopposed by progestins, causes proliferative glandular epithelial changes or hyperplasia. Hyperplasia, due to prolonged exposure to estrogens, is biologically distinct from the precancerous lesion EIN–AEH. The precursor lesion of type I endometrioid adenocarcinoma is EIN–AEH. Making the distinction between hyperplasia and EIN–AEH is important, because each condition has differing cancer risks and requires different interventions to avoid undertreatment or overtreatment.

Cancer of the endometrium is rising in the United States, with an estimated incidence of 66,200 cases and 13,030 deaths in 2023 8. Disparities in care linked to differences in race, ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status have been associated with poorer outcomes. Data show that Black individuals with endometrial cancer have a 55% higher 5-year mortality risk when compared with White individuals 9. Although Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with nonendometrioid (aggressive) histologies 10, this alone does not explain the disparity in mortality. Survival by Black individuals is lower than for White individuals, even when controlling for stage, grade, histologic subtype, and age. Asian/Pacific Islander patients also have been found to more frequently present with advanced disease when compared with White patients 11, and Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals are less likely to receive guideline-compliant treatment 10. In addition to disparities by race and ethnicity, factors such as insurance status (Medicaid or Medicare vs private payer) and treatment at low-volume medical centers are associated with decreased survival rates 11. In a separate study, having Black and Hispanic race and ethnicity, Medicaid insurance or no insurance, and lower rates of education was associated with longer wait times for surgery after diagnosis 12.


Methods

This Clinical Consensus document was developed using an a priori protocol in conjunction with the authors listed above. The a priori protocol was modeled after the Clinical Consensus methodology, and a full description of the Clinical Consensus methodology is published separately 13. The description below is specific to this Clinical Consensus document.

Literature Search

A literature search was performed from 2000 to October 2021 combining terms for endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia with terms related to concepts in the outline. The ACOG medical librarians searched Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE for human-only studies written in English. Cochrane trials from the Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials from 2016 to October 2021 were also saved. MeSH terms and keywords can be found in Appendix 1 (available online at http://links.lww.com/AOG/D269). Search terms for racial, ethnic, socio-economic, and vulnerable population disparities in EIN–AEH were incorporated into the literature review, and recommendations were drafted with the intent of promoting health equity and reducing these disparities. A bridge literature search was completed in March 2023. Any updated literature was incorporated into the text and recommendations, as appropriate.

Study Selection

Qualifying studies passed both title and abstract screen and full-text screen and met the following inclusion criteria: conducted in countries ranked very high on the United Nations Human Development Index 14, included female participants, and included all study designs. Studies that passed full-text screen by the authors were included in a summary evidence map (Appendix 2, available online at http://links.lww.com/AOG/D270). In one case, a study was identified after the literature search was concluded that did not meet one of the inclusion criterion 15. Although the study was conducted in a country that is not ranked as very high on the United Nations Human Development Index, the data were deemed necessary to demonstrate the comparative regression efficacy of combined intrauterine and oral progestins compared with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) alone.

Consensus Voting and Recommendation Development

At a meeting of the Committee on Clinical Consensus–Gynecology, a quorum of two-thirds of eligible voting members was met, and the committee held a formal vote for each proposed recommendation. All recommendation statements met or exceeded the 75% approval threshold required for consensus.

Use of Language

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes and supports the gender diversity of all patients who seek obstetric and gynecologic care. In original portions of this document, authors seek to use gender-inclusive language or gender-neutral language. When describing research findings, this document uses gender terminology reported by investigators. To review ACOG's policy on inclusive language, see https://www.acog.org/clinical-information/policy-and-position-statements/statements-of-policy/2022/inclusive-language.


Summary of Consensus Recommendations

Detecting Concurrent Carcinoma

Gynecologists should attempt to exclude concurrent carcinoma in individuals with a working diagnosis of EIN–AEH. Hysteroscopic examination with further sampling of the endometrium is the most accurate method for detecting a concurrent carcinoma.

Surgical Management

Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment for EIN–AEH. Gynecologists should not perform supracervical hysterectomy for the treatment of EIN–AEH.

Gynecologists should not perform endometrial ablation (thermal or electrocautery) for EIN–AEH due to high persistence and recurrence rates, as well as potential difficulty in evaluating future bleeding episodes.

Nonsurgical Management

Clinicians should recommend progestational agents as treatment for EIN–AEH for patients in whom hysterectomy is not an option.

Data on the superiority of either oral or intrauterine progestational agents are lacking, though limited data suggest that intrauterine progestational administration may be associated with a higher rate of disease regression when compared with oral administration alone in patients with EIN–AEH.

There is insufficient evidence to recommend any one formulation of oral progestational agent over another.

Follow-up

For those initially treated with progestational agents, gynecologists should perform repeat histologic assessment for response to treatment for EIN–AEH within 3–6 months.

After initial progestin treatment, gynecologists may consider long-term maintenance therapy with progestational agents for patients with continuing risk factors for endometrial cancer.

Counseling Patients on Lifestyle Modifications

Gynecologists and other clinicians should counsel patients that lifestyle modification resulting in weight loss and glycemic control can improve overall health and may decrease the risk of EIN–AEH and endometrial cancer.

EIN–AEH, endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical endometrial hyperplasia.


Detecting Concurrent Carcinoma

Gynecologists should attempt to exclude concurrent carcinoma in individuals with a working diagnosis of EIN–AEH. Hysteroscopic examination with further sampling of the endometrium is the most accurate method for detecting a concurrent carcinoma.

The percentage of patients diagnosed with EIN–AEH who undergo hysterectomy and have endometrial cancer in the hysterectomy specimen ranges from approximately 30% to nearly 50% 16 17 18. Thus, when a conservative (fertility-sparing) approach to the management of EIN–AEH is under consideration, it is important to attempt to exclude the presence of endometrial cancer to avoid potential undertreatment of an unknown malignancy in patients who have been already diagnosed with EIN–AEH. Multiple methods are available to sample the endometrium. The simplest method, in-office suction endometrial sampling performed with a plastic cannula, has a long history of safety and efficacy and previously was found to be comparable with uterine curettage when used to diagnose endometrial cancer in women with abnormal bleeding 19. However, more recent data demonstrate a higher rate of endometrial cancer in hysterectomy specimens in patients with preoperative office Pipelle biopsy when compared with uterine dilation and curettage 20 21. It is believed that “mass lesions” that impinge on the endometrial cavity may deflect the pliable suction catheter and lead to ineffective sampling that may miss endometrial pathology.

Hysteroscopic-guided uterine sampling is recommended, and data demonstrate its utility for the diagnosis of endometrial polyps, endometrial cancer, and endometrial hyperplasia 22 23. There are several tissue-removal devices on the market that can provide simple, hysteroscopic-guided resection of the endometrium. Although they morcellate the specimen, this is done in a contained environment and produces excellent samples to evaluate, at the expense of clear orientation. Sampling methods that yield crushed or very small samples (jawed devices) or cauterized samples (hot loops) are not recommended, because it is difficult to adequately evaluate the pathologic specimen due to the artifact produced by the sampling method.


Surgical Management

Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment for EIN–AEH. Gynecologists should not perform supracervical hysterectomy for the treatment of EIN–AEH.

The primary objectives in the management of a patient with EIN–AEH are to 1) rule out endometrial cancer and 2) design a treatment plan that can prevent or delay progression to endometrial cancer. In a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis, the risk of EIN–AEH progressing to endometrial cancer was approximately 8% per year 18. Patients may choose to undergo hysterectomy as definitive treatment for EIN–AEH. Depending on the clinical situation, some patients, such as those who desire to preserve fertility, may choose less definitive but still effective treatment strategies. Advantages of management with hysterectomy include definitive assessment of a possible concurrent carcinoma (occurring in approximately 30–50% of cases of EIN–AEH) and effective treatment of premalignant lesions that require no further therapy or specific follow-up for EIN–AEH 17 21 24. The decision to perform an oophorectomy in premenopausal individuals should be a shared decision between the patient and clinician due to the risks associated with surgical menopause (eg, cognitive impairment and cardiovascular disease) 25. These potential risks should be weighed against the risk of concurrent occult endometrial cancer; in this case, oophorectomy may be advised. Importantly, supracervical hysterectomy for the treatment of EIN–AEH should not be performed because of the inability to assess the lowest extent of the lesion; it may involve the lower uterine segment or upper endocervix.

Due to the high rate of concurrent endometrial cancer in patients with EIN–AEH, when performing a hysterectomy, the surgeon should consider intraoperative assessment of the uterine specimen for occult carcinoma because it may identify the need for additional surgical management. This intraoperative evaluation should be directed by a qualified pathologist or a surgeon with experience in evaluating uteri with endometrial cancer and should include gross examination of the open specimen and possible frozen section 26. The decision to consult a gynecologic oncologist should be individualized based on the patient and the health system's available resources 27. In settings without access to local oncology expertise, there is no role for intraoperative assessment of the specimen. If morcellation of the uterine specimen is needed to remove the uterus, it should be done in a contained environment (eg, a bag) to prevent any spill. Additionally, the surgeon should be aware that morcellation may make it more difficult for the pathologist to evaluate the specimen.

Gynecologists should not perform endometrial ablation (thermal or electrocautery) for EIN–AEH due to high persistence and recurrence rates, as well as potential difficulty in evaluating future bleeding episodes.

Endometrial ablation (thermal or electrocautery) should not be used to treat EIN–AEH. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration includes the following contraindication for the thermal (radio-frequency) endometrial ablation device: “A patient with known or suspected endometrial carcinoma (uterine cancer) or pre-malignant change of the endometrium, such as unresolved adenomatous hyperplasia” 28.


Nonsurgical Management

Clinicians should recommend progestational agents as treatment for EIN–AEH for patients in whom hysterectomy is not an option.

For some patients, hysterectomy may not be the most optimal strategy for treatment of EIN–AEH. Given the high risk of progression to cancer, patients who do not have surgery require progestin therapy and close surveillance. Many of the data on the use of progestational agents are derived from the treatment of patients with simple and complex hyperplasia, often in the absence of cellular atypia. In those populations, treatment with progestational agents has been shown to result in high rates of regression 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37. Although there are more limited data on the treatment of EIN–AEH with progestational agents, studies have found high rates of disease regression in patients who are not candidates for definitive surgical management and, instead, are managed with more conservative approaches. A systematic review of outcomes in patients with EIN–AEH or grade 1 adenocarcinoma demonstrated an initial response to progestins of 86%, with a complete response (resolution) of 66% for those with EIN–AEH 38. Oral, intrauterine, and combined modes of administration have been shown to be effective, with rates of disease regression ranging from nearly 50% to greater than 90%, depending on study and method of administration 15 38 39 40 41 42 43 44. Data support that continuous oral therapy is more effective than the use of cyclical therapy 40. Among all methods, adverse effects were generally well-tolerated by patients. Vaginal bleeding may be more common with the intrauterine mode of administration, and nausea may be more associated with oral progestational agents. Data on use of the LNG-IUD for management of EIN–AEH are from the 52-mg LNG-IUD, with a delivery rate of 20 micrograms/day 15 41 42 44 45 46 47 48. Throughout this article, discussion of the LNG-IUD will refer to the 52-mg device with a delivery rate of 20 micrograms/day within 5 years of placement. SeeBox 1for progestational agents used for the treatment of EIN–AEH.

Box 1.

Progestational Agents for Treatment of Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia

  • Megestrol acetate

  • Medroxyprogesterone acetate

  • Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device

  • Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device plus oral progestin

Data on the superiority of either oral or intrauterine progestational agents are lacking, though limited data suggest that intrauterine progestational administration may be associated with a higher rate of disease regression when compared with oral administration alone in patients with EIN–AEH.

Although data are conflicting and limited, studies have demonstrated that treatment with the LNG-IUD results in a higher regression rate when compared with treatment with oral progestins alone 15 40 47. Continuous oral progestins do demonstrate efficacy in the treatment of EIN–AEH; one randomized trial found it to be nearly as effective as treatment with the LNG-IUD 40. One study observed an improved regression rate with combined intrauterine and oral progestins (85%) compared with the LNG-IUD alone (55%) 15.

Compared with systemic therapy, adverse events with the LNG-IUD are uncommon and similar to those reported when the LNG-IUD is used for contraception (eg, expulsion, perforation, pelvic inflammatory disease). Additionally, patient adherence with LNG-IUD therapy has been reported to be higher, with less weight gain, and patient-reported health status scores (physical functioning and energy levels) have been reported to improve over time with this method 44 49. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports insurance coverage for the most appropriate progestin therapy method for the patient based on individualized risks, benefits, and preferences.

There is insufficient evidence to recommend any one formulation of oral progestational agent over another.

To date, no direct comparisons between different oral progestin formulations have been published. However, megestrol acetate or medroxyprogesterone acetate are recommended given that the majority of studies on management of EIN–AEH with progestational agents used one of these two agents. Limited data suggest that cyclic progestational agents have lower regression rates when compared with continuous oral therapy 40.


Follow-up

For patients initially treated with progestational agents, gynecologists should perform repeat histologic assessment for response to treatment for EIN–AEH within 3–6 months.

After initial conservative treatment for EIN–AEH (treatment with progestational agents), early detection of disease persistence, progression, or recurrence requires careful follow-up. The initiation and frequency of histologic assessment depends on numerous factors, including the choice of treatment, menopausal status, and the presence of obesity and other risk factors associated with endometrial cancer. Surveillance after total hysterectomy for EIN–AEH with pathologic confirmation of the absence of coexisting endometrial carcinoma is not recommended, because surgery eliminates the risk of disease progression 24.

For patients managed with progestational agents, repeat histologic assessment within 3–6 months is recommended to determine treatment response. There are several types of potential outcomes to treatment 50. The first is resolution (complete response) of the hyperplasia, with a repeat endometrial sampling demonstrating atrophic, secretory, or proliferative endometrium. Secondly, regression is considered to have occurred when the repeat sampling still reveals hyperplasia but without atypia. The third type of outcome is persistence of disease with no change in histology at the time of the repeat sampling. Finally, there can be progression to cancer. Review of the biopsy results and consultation with a pathologist may assist with the individualization of a patient's follow-up plan. If there is no response or some regression during the initial 3–6 months of therapy, an additional 3–6 months of therapy may be considered after discussion with the patient. If there is no response after 9–12 total months of therapy, other management options, including definitive surgery, should be discussed.

In a systematic review of 111 women with EIN–AEH and 280 women with early-stage endometrial carcinoma treated with progestational agents, the median time to complete response (resolution), in studies in which time to response was reported, was 6 months (ranging from 1 to 18 months) 38. After 3 months of treatment, failure to detect exogenous progesterone effect is associated with lack of response 44. Nonresponse after 6 months of treatment with the LNG-IUD was associated with increased uterine diameter (9.3 vs 8 cm; P=.04) 51. Whether it is preferable to discontinue oral progestins and wait for a withdrawal bleed before endometrial sampling or proceed with sampling while the patient continues oral progestin treatment remains unclear 24. In patients being treated with the LNG-IUD, histologic sampling may be completed with the device in place. The utility of pretreatment hormone receptor expression (PR-A and PR-B) in predicting relapse after progestin-based therapy has been demonstrated 52 53 54.

The optimal interval and duration of endometrial sampling after complete response (resolution) with treatment with progestational agents have not been established 38 55. In a retrospective observational cohort study of 245 women with EIN–AEH managed with suction dilation and curettage to rule out occult malignancy followed by treatment with LNG-IUD or oral progestin therapy, 28 patients (11.4%) progressed to cancer, with a median time to cancer diagnosis of 9.5 months (interquartile range 3.5–28.6 months) 46. Based on what is known about potential progressive disease, it is reasonable to continue endometrial sampling in patients treated with progestational agents every 3–6 months for up to 2 years. The recurrence rate of EIN–AEH remains elevated after initial response to conservative management with progestational agents.

A systematic review reported a recurrence rate of approximately 23% for patients treated for EIN–AEH (n=111) and a median time to recurrence of 24 months (ranging 4–72 months) for those treated for EIN–AEH or grade 1 adenocarcinoma (n=391) 38. Some experts recommend discontinuing surveillance biopsies after 2 years for patients without evidence of persistent disease, recurrence, or progression of disease and who are asymptomatic without vaginal bleeding. However, both patients and clinicians should be vigilant of clinical changes, such as symptoms of recurrence (eg, vaginal bleeding), and the need for follow-up (biopsy, pathology review, or consultation with a gynecologic oncologist).

After initial progestin treatment, gynecologists may consider long-term maintenance therapy with progestational agents for patients with continuing risk factors for endometrial cancer.

After initial treatment with progestational agents, medical management with these agents may be continued in patients who remain at risk for the development of endometrial cancer due to the following: factors such as increasing age, late menopause, nulliparity, and chronic anovulation; higher-risk conditions (Lynch syndrome, Cowden syndrome); modifiable risk factors, such as the use of unopposed estrogen therapy; and potentially modifiable risk factors, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. In a case–control study of 138 women diagnosed with endometrial cancer at least 1 year after an index biopsy of endometrial hyperplasia and a matched control group, the risk of progression of the 42 women with atypical hyperplasia (all of whom received hormonal treatment [eg, medroxyprogesterone acetate]) to carcinoma was 8.2% through 4 years (95% CI 1.3–14.6%); cumulative risk steadily rose to 27.5% (95% CI 8.6–42.5%) at 19 years after the index biopsy 56. Most studies, however, have follow-up periods of insufficient length to inform approaches to long-term maintenance. Guidance on how long to continue the use of an LNG-IUD or systemic progestational agents to prevent long-term recurrence has not been determined.

Future Fertility

A systematic review and systematic review and meta-analysis focused on fertility-sparing therapy for premenopausal women with EIN–AEH reported pregnancy rates ranging from 26.3% to 41.0% for premenopausal individuals who opted for management with progestational agents 38 43. For those who received fertility-sparing treatment for EIN–AEH or endometrial cancer, the use of assisted reproductive technology was common 57, and the live-birth rate in women using assisted reproductive technology was higher than that of women who attempted to achieve pregnancy spontaneously (39.4% vs 14.9%; P=.001) 43. A retrospective analysis of 63 patients (42 with endometrial cancer and 21 with EIN–AEH) who underwent fertility-sparing treatment reported that, of the 31 patients who achieved remission with medroxyprogesterone acetate and metformin, in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer resulted in 19 pregnancies (61.3%) and 14 live births (45.2%) 58. A small prospective cohort study (n=60) found that in vitro fertilization after conservative fertility-sparing management of EIN–AEH or grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma was not associated with an increased risk of recurrence 59. Because many patients will have conditions that can negatively affect fertility (eg, polycystic ovarian syndrome, obesity, and diabetes), active management to achieve pregnancy should be discussed and referral to an infertility specialist should be considered.


Counseling Patients on Lifestyle Modifications

Gynecologists and other clinicians should counsel patients that lifestyle modification resulting in weight loss and glycemic control can improve overall health and may decrease the risk of EIN–AEH and endometrial cancer.

More than 75% of endometrial cancer survivors have obesity 60, defined as having a body mass index (BMI [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]) of 30 or higher. They are more likely to have obesity-related comorbidities and are at a greater risk of mortality compared with those without obesity. Many individuals who receive gynecologic care, including those in treatment for EIN–AEH or carcinoma as well as survivors, are unaware of the link among obesity, endometrial hyperplasia and cancer, and other comorbidities, including hypertension and type 2 diabetes 60 61 62 63 64. Weight loss of 7–10% of a person's total body weight has been found to have positive effects on health outcomes. Education, counseling on options for lifestyle modification leading to weight loss and improved glycemic control, and shared decision making are components of care that have the potential to affect immediate and long-term outcomes.

Gynecologists may consider counseling patients being treated with an LNG-IUD for EIN–AEH who also have obesity about weight-loss interventions. In a prospective study of 71 women with atypical hyperplasia or grade 1 or 2 endometrioid adenocarcinoma being treated with the LNG-IUD, investigators assessed the uptake of bariatric surgery (offered to those with BMIs higher than 35) and the effects of more than 10% of body weight loss on progestin treatment response at 12 months 48. Ninety percent of participants were offered bariatric surgery, and 36% subsequently underwent a bariatric procedure. The remaining patients were encouraged to follow a low-calorie diet. Of 71 participants, 43 (61%) responded to treatment, 23 (32%) had stable disease, and five (7%) progressed during treatment with an LNG-IUD. Excluding those who progressed, women who lost more than 10% of their total body weight (86% of bariatric patients and 23% of patients on low-calorie diets) were nearly four times more likely to respond to the LNG-IUD (adjusted odds ratio 3.95, 95% CI 1.3–12.5; P=.02) 48. Telemedicine and text-based weight-loss interventions for individuals with endometrial hyperplasia or type 1 endometrial cancer and obesity have demonstrated effectiveness in assisting patients with weight loss 62. Discussions about the diagnosis of EIN–AEH or early-stage endometrial cancer may be a useful time to discuss potential lifestyle modifications and related tools for weight loss.


Further Research

Limitations of the current literature include the use of inconsistent terminology for endometrial hyperplasia and, in many trials, the inclusion of individuals with endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Although focus on EIN–AEH is increasing, further research and larger sample sizes are needed. Research should include patient-centered outcomes, with an emphasis on patient quality of life. To better understand optimal approaches to the management of EIN–AEH and existing disparities in treatment and mortality, more research is needed on the causes of disease relapse and regression, particularly in historically excluded populations, including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous patients. More research is needed to identify treatments and interventional approaches that can eliminate disparities and ensure equity for all patients.

The number of individuals with risk factors for EIN–AEH—in particular obesity—is increasing. More data are needed on potentially modifiable risk factors, including rigorous and adequately powered randomized controlled trials with adequate duration of follow-up focusing on the effects of dietary modifications, as well as medical and surgical weight-loss management.

Additionally, research is needed on the utility of repeat sampling for the exclusion of concurrent malignancy when diagnosing EIN–AEH, the comparative effectiveness of different progestational agents, and the subtypes of EIN–AEH, including molecular classification. Long-term outcomes of patients who did not have definitive treatment (hysterectomy) are needed. The effect of combination therapies for initial nonresponders, the utility of lower-dose LNG-IUDs, and alternative approaches to monitoring patients with EIN–AEH are other areas of needed research.


Appendices


Conflict of Interest Statement

All ACOG committee members and authors have submitted a conflict of interest disclosure statement related to this published product. Any potential conflicts have been considered and managed in accordance with ACOG's Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policy. The ACOG policies can be found on acog.org. For products jointly developed with other organizations, conflict of interest disclosures by representatives of the other organizations are addressed by those organizations. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of this published product.


References

  1. Sherman ME. Theories of endometrial carcinogenesis: a multidisciplinary approach. Mod Pathol 2000; 13: 295– 308. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3880051
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  2. Silverberg SG, Kurman RJ, Nogales F, Mutter GL, Kubik-Huch RA, Tavassoli FA. Epithelial tumours and related lesions. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P, editors. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. World Health Organization classification of tumours . International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2003: 221– 32.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  3. Scully RE, Bonfiglio TA, Kurman RJ, Silverberg SG, Wilkinson EJ. Uterine corpus. In: Histological typing of female genital tract tumours . 2nd ed. Springer; 1994: 13– 30.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  4. Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH, editors. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs . 4th ed. International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  5. Emons G, Beckmann MW, Schmidt D, Mallmann P; Uterus Commission of the Gynecological Oncology Working Group (AGO). New WHO classification of endometrial hyperplasias. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015; 75: 135– 6. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1396256
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  6. Kim KR, Lax S, Lazar A, Longacre T, Malpica A, Matias-Guiu X, et al. Tumours of the uterine corpus. In: WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Female genital tumours . 5th ed. International Agency of Research on Cancer; 2020: 245– 308.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  7. Mutter GL. Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN): will it bring order to chaos? The Endometrial Collaborative Group. Gynecol Oncol 2000; 76: 287– 90. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1999.5580
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  8. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023; 73: 17– 48. doi: 10.3322/caac.21763
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  9. Doll KM, Snyder CR, Ford CL. Endometrial cancer disparities: a race-conscious critique of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218: 474– 82.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.09.016
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  10. Whetstone S, Burke W, Sheth SS, Brooks R, Cavens A, Huber-Keener K, et al. Health disparities in uterine cancer: report from the uterine cancer evidence review conference. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 139: 645– 59. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004710
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  11. Fader AN, Habermann EB, Hanson KT, Lin JF, Grendys EC, Dowdy SC. Disparities in treatment and survival for women with endometrial cancer: a contemporary national cancer database registry analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 143: 98– 104. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.07.107
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  12. Strohl AE, Feinglass JM, Shahabi S, Simon MA. Surgical wait time: a new health indicator in women with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 141: 511– 5. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.04.014
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  13. Clinical Consensus methodology. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 138: 523– 6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004520
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  14. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Index (HDI). Accessed June 7, 2023. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  15. Fang F, Xu H, Wu L, Hu L, Liu Y, Li Y, Zhang C. LNG-IUS combined with progesterone ameliorates endometrial thickness and pregnancy outcomes of patients with early-stage endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Am J Transl Res 2021; 13: 5412– 9.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  16. Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R, Silverberg S, Lim PC, Burke JJII, et al. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer 2006; 106: 812– 9. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21650
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  17. Dolanbay M, Kutuk MS, Uludag S, Bulut AN, Ozgun MT, Ozcelik B, et al. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in hysterectomy specimens in patients with histopathological diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia in curettage specimens. Ginekol Pol 2015; 86: 753– 8. doi: 10.17772/gp/57813
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  18. Doherty MT, Sanni OB, Coleman HG, Cardwell CR, McCluggage WG, Quinn D, et al. Concurrent and future risk of endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0232231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232231
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  19. Ben-Baruch G, Seidman DS, Schiff E, Moran O, Menczer J. Outpatient endometrial sampling with the Pipelle curette. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1994; 37: 260– 2. doi: 10.1159/000292573
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  20. Costales AB, Schmeler KM, Broaddus R, Soliman PT, Westin SN, Ramirez PT, et al. Clinically significant endometrial cancer risk following a diagnosis of complex atypical hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 135: 451– 4. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.008
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  21. Suh-Burgmann E, Hung Y, Armstrong MA. Complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia: the risk of unrecognized adenocarcinoma and value of preoperative dilation and curettage. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 523– 9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b190d5
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  22. Bedner R, Rzepka-Górska I. Hysteroscopy with directed biopsy versus dilatation and curettage for the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in perimenopausal women. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2007; 28: 400– 2.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  23. Dueholm M, Hjorth IM, Dahl K, Ørtoft G. Hysteroscopic resectoscope-directed biopsies and outpatient endometrial sampling for assessment of tumor histology in women with endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 251: 173– 9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.05.010
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  24. Trimble CL, Method M, Leitao M, Lu K, Ioffe O, Hampton M, et al. Management of endometrial precancers. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 1160– 75. doi: 10.1097/aog.0b013e31826bb121
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  25. Opportunistic salpingectomy as a strategy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 774. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133: e279– 84. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003164
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  26. Attard Montalto S, Coutts M, Devaja O, Summers J, Jyothirmayi R, Papadopoulos A. Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis at surgery in pre-malignant and malignant lesions of the endometrium. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2008; 29: 435– 40.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  27. Chaiken SR, Bohn JA, Bruegl AS, Caughey AB, Munro EG. Hysterectomy with a general gynecologist vs gynecologic-oncologist in the setting of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 227: 609.e1– 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.05.055
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  28. Novacept Inc. Summary of safety and effectiveness data: Novasure TM impedance controlled endometrial ablation system. Novacept, Inc. Accessed March 20, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf/p010013b.pdf
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  29. Clement NS, Oliver TR, Shiwani H, Sanner JR, Mulvaney CA, Atiomo W. Metformin for endometrial hyperplasia. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD012214. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012214.pub2
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  30. Mittermeier T, Farrant C, Wise MR. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for endometrial hyperplasia. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD012658. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012658.pub2
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  31. Demir Karakilic I, Karabacak O, Karabacak N, Guler I, Korucuoglu U. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog combined with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate in the management of endometrial hyperplasia a prospective randomized clinical study. J Reprod Med 2016; 61: 361– 7.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  32. Moradan S, Nikkhah N, Mirmohammadkhanai M. Comparing the administration of letrozole and megestrol acetate in the treatment of women with simple endometrial hyperplasia without atypia: a randomized clinical trial. Adv Ther 2017; 34: 1211– 20. doi: 10.1007/s12325-017-0509-8
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  33. Nooh AM, Abdeldayem HM, Girbash EF, Arafa EM, Atwa K, Abdel-Raouf SM. Depo-provera versus norethisterone acetate in management of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Reprod Sci 2016; 23: 448– 54. doi: 10.1177/1933719115623643
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  34. Sharifzadeh F, Aminimoghaddam S, Kashanian M, Fazaeli M, Sheikhansari N. A comparison between the effects of metformin and megestrol on simple endometrial hyperplasia. Gynecol Endocrinol 2017; 33: 152– 5. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2016.1223285
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  35. Tasci Y, Polat OG, Ozdogan S, Karcaaltincaba D, Seckin L, Erkaya S. Comparison of the efficacy of micronized progesterone and lynestrenol in treatment of simple endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 290: 83– 6. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3161-4
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  36. Tehranian A, Ghahghaei-Nezamabadi A, Arab M, Khalagi K, Aghajani R, Sadeghi S. The impact of adjunctive metformin to progesterone for the treatment of non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia in a randomized fashion, a placebo-controlled, double blind clinical trial. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021; 50: 101863. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101863
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  37. Uysal G, Acmaz G, Madendag Y, Cagli F, Akkaya H, Madendag I, et al. The efficacy of dienogest in the treatment of simple endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2018; 83: 151– 5. doi: 10.1159/000477618
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  38. Gunderson CC, Fader AN, Carson KA, Bristow RE. Oncologic and reproductive outcomes with progestin therapy in women with endometrial hyperplasia and grade 1 adenocarcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 125: 477– 82. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.003
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  39. Janda M, Robledo KP, Gebski V, Armes JE, Alizart M, Cummings M, et al. Complete pathological response following levonorgestrel intrauterine device in clinically stage 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma: results of a randomized clinical trial. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 161: 143– 51. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.01.029
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  40. Orbo A, Vereide A, Arnes M, Pettersen I, Straume B. Levonorgestrel-impregnated intrauterine device as treatment for endometrial hyperplasia: a national multicentre randomised trial. BJOG 2014; 121: 477– 86. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12499
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  41. Baker J, Obermair A, Gebski V, Janda M. Efficacy of oral or intrauterine device-delivered progestin in patients with complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia or early endometrial adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 125: 263– 70. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.043
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  42. Gallos ID, Krishan P, Shehmar M, Ganesan R, Gupta JK. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen treatment for endometrial hyperplasia: a long-term comparative cohort study. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 2966– 71. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det320
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  43. Gallos ID, Yap J, Rajkhowa M, Luesley DM, Coomarasamy A, Gupta JK. Regression, relapse, and live birth rates with fertility-sparing therapy for endometrial cancer and atypical complex endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 266.e1– 12. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.08.011
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  44. Westin SN, Fellman B, Sun CC, Broaddus RR, Woodall ML, Pal N, et al. Prospective phase II trial of levonorgestrel intrauterine device: nonsurgical approach for complex atypical hyperplasia and early-stage endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224: 191.e1– 15. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.032
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  45. 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: 1231– 6. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det049
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  46. Mandelbaum RS, Ciccone MA, Nusbaum DJ, Khoshchehreh M, Purswani H, Morocco EB, et al. Progestin therapy for obese women with complex atypical hyperplasia: levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device vs systemic therapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223: 103.e1– 13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.12.273
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  47. Gallos ID, Shehmar M, Thangaratinam S, Papapostolou TK, Coomarasamy A, Gupta JK. Oral progestogens vs levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 547.e1– 10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.07.037
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  48. Barr CE, Ryan NA, Derbyshire AE, Wan YL, MacKintosh ML, McVey RJ, et al. Weight loss during intrauterine progestin treatment for obesity-associated atypical hyperplasia and early-stage cancer of the endometrium. Cancer Prev Res 2021; 14: 1041– 50. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-21-0229
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  49. Cholakian D, Hacker K, Fader AN, Gehrig PA, Tanner EJIII. Effect of oral versus intrauterine progestins on weight in women undergoing fertility preserving therapy for complex atypical hyperplasia or endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 140: 234– 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.12.010
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  50. Mentrikoski MJ, Shah AA, Hanley KZ, Atkins KA. Assessing endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma treated with progestin therapy. Am J Clin Pathol 2012; 138: 524– 34. doi: 10.1309/AJCPM2TSDDF1MHBZ
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  51. Pal N, Broaddus RR, Urbauer DL, Balakrishnan N, Milbourne A, Schmeler KM, et al. Treatment of low-risk endometrial cancer and complex atypical hyperplasia with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131: 109– 16. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002390
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  52. Gunderson CC, Dutta S, Fader AN, Maniar KP, Nasseri-Nik N, Bristow RE, et al. Pathologic features associated with resolution of complex atypical hyperplasia and grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma after progestin therapy. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 132: 33– 7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.11.033
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  53. Gallos ID, Devey J, Ganesan R, Gupta JK. Predictive ability of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), COX-2, Mlh1, and Bcl-2 expressions for regression and relapse of endometrial hyperplasia treated with LNG-IUS: a prospective cohort study. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 130: 58– 63. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.04.016
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  54. Sletten E, Arnes M, Lyså L, Larsen M, Ørbo A. Significance of progesterone receptors (PR-A and PR-B) expression as predictors for relapse after successful therapy of endometrial hyperplasia: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2019; 126: 936– 43. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15579
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  55. Ørbo A, Arnes M, Vereide AB, Straume B. Relapse risk of endometrial hyperplasia after treatment with the levonorgestrel-impregnated intrauterine system or oral progestogens. BJOG 2016; 123: 1512– 9. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13763
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  56. Lacey JVJr, Sherman ME, Rush BB, Ronnett BM, Ioffe OB, Duggan MA, et al. Absolute risk of endometrial carcinoma during 20-year follow-up among women with endometrial hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 788– 92. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.1315
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  57. Koskas M, Uzan J, Luton D, Rouzier R, Daraï E. Prognostic factors of oncologic and reproductive outcomes in fertility-sparing management of endometrial atypical hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Sterility 2014; 101: 785– 94.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.028
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  58. Mitsuhashi A, Habu Y, Kobayashi T, Kawarai Y, Ishikawa H, Usui H, Shozu M. Long-term outcomes of progestin plus metformin as a fertility-sparing treatment for atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer patients. J Gynecol Oncol 2019; 30: e90. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e90
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  59. Vaugon M, Peigné M, Phelippeau J, Gonthier C, Koskas M. IVF impact on the risk of recurrence of endometrial adenocarcinoma after fertility-sparing management. Reprod BioMedicine Online 2021; 43: 495– 502. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.007
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  60. Jernigan AM, Maurer KA, Cooper K, Schauer PR, Rose PG, Michener CM. Referring survivors of endometrial cancer and complex atypical hyperplasia to bariatric specialists: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213: 350.e1– 10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.05.015
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  61. Linkov F, Edwards R, Balk J, Yurkovetsky Z, Stadterman B, Lokshin A, et al. Endometrial hyperplasia, endometrial cancer and prevention: gaps in existing research of modifiable risk factors. Eur J Cancer 2008; 44: 1632– 44. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.05.001
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  62. Haggerty AF, Huepenbecker S, Sarwer DB, Spitzer J, Raggio G, Chu CS, et al. The use of novel technology-based weight loss interventions for obese women with endometrial hyperplasia and cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 140: 239– 44. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.033
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  63. Haggerty AF, Sarwer DB, Schmitz KH, Ko EM, Allison KC, Chu CS. Obesity and endometrial cancer: a lack of knowledge but opportunity for intervention. Nutr Cancer 2017; 69: 990– 5. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2017.1359313
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  64. Raffone A, Travaglino A, Saccone G, D'Alessandro P, Arduino B, Mascolo M, et al. Diabetes mellitus is associated with occult cancer in endometrial hyperplasia. Pathol Oncol Res 2020; 26: 1377– 84. doi: 10.1007/s12253-019-00684-3
    Article Locations:
    Article Location

Published online on August 17, 2023.

Copyright 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, posted on the internet, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

409 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024-2188

Management of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Clinical Consensus No. 5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2023;142:735–44.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) reviews its publications regularly; however, its publications may not reflect the most recent evidence. A reaffirmation date is included in the online version of a document to indicate when it was last reviewed. The current status and any updates of this document can be found on ACOG Clinical at acog.org/lot.

This information is designed as an educational resource to aid clinicians in providing obstetric and gynecologic care, and use of this information is voluntary. This information should not be considered as inclusive of all proper treatments or methods of care or as a statement of the standard of care. It is not intended to substitute for the independent professional judgment of the treating clinician. Variations in practice may be warranted when, in the reasonable judgment of the treating clinician, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources, or advances in knowledge or technology.

While ACOG makes every effort to present accurate and reliable information, this publication is provided “as is” without any warranty of accuracy, reliability, or otherwise, either express or implied. ACOG does not guarantee, warrant, or endorse the products or services of any firm, organization, or person. Neither ACOG nor its officers, directors, members, employees, or agents will be liable for any loss, damage, or claim with respect to any liabilities, including direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages, incurred in connection with this publication or reliance on the information presented.