Detecting Endometrial Cancer by Blood Spectroscopy: A Diagnostic Cross-Sectional Study

Endometrial cancer is the sixth most common cancer in women, with a rising incidence worldwide. Current approaches for the diagnosis and screening of endometrial cancer are invasive, expensive or of moderate diagnostic accuracy, limiting their clinical utility. There is a need for cost-effective and minimally invasive approaches to facilitate the early detection and timely management of endometrial cancer. We analysed blood plasma samples in a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study of women with endometrial cancer (n = 342), its precursor lesion atypical hyperplasia (n = 68) and healthy controls (n = 242, total n = 652) using attenuated total reflection-Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy and machine learning algorithms. We show that blood-based infrared spectroscopy has the potential to detect endometrial cancer with 87% sensitivity and 78% specificity. Its accuracy is highest for Type I endometrial cancer, the most common subtype, and for atypical hyperplasia, with sensitivities of 91% and 100%, and specificities of 81% and 88%, respectively. Our large-cohort study shows that a simple blood test could enable the early detection of endometrial cancer of all stages in symptomatic women and provide the basis of a screening tool in high-risk groups. Such a test has the potential not only to differentially diagnose endometrial cancer but also to detect its precursor lesion atypical hyperplasia—the early recognition of which may allow fertility sparing management and cancer prevention

Weight loss during intrauterine progestin treatment for obesity-associated atypical hyperplasia and early stage cancer of the endometrium.

From PubMed via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2021-05-29, revised 2021-06-23, accepted 2021-07-20Publication status: aheadofprintIntrauterine progestin is a treatment option for women with atypical hyperplasia or low-risk endometrial cancer who wish to preserve their fertility, or whose poor surgical fitness precludes safe hysterectomy. We hypothesized that in such women with obesity, weight loss during progestin treatment may improve oncological outcomes. We conducted a prospective non-randomized study of women with obesity and atypical hyperplasia or low-grade stage 1a endometrial cancer undergoing progestin treatment. Women with a BMI{greater than or equal to}35kg/m2 were offered bariatric surgery; those who declined and those with BMI 30-34.9kg/m2 were encouraged to lose weight by low-calorie diet. We assessed uptake of bariatric surgery; weight lost during progestin treatment; and the impact of >10% total body weight loss on progestin treatment response at 12 months. 71 women [median age 58years-(IQR 35-65); mean BMI 48kg/m2-(SD 9.3)] completed the study. 23 women (32%) had bariatric surgery, on average 5 months (IQR 3-8) after progestin treatment commenced. Weight change during progestin treatment was -33.4kg (95%CI -42.1, -24.7) and -4.6kg (95%CI -7.8, -1.4) in women receiving bariatric surgery and low-calorie diet, respectively (p10% of their total body weight were more likely to respond to progestin than those who did not (adjusted odds ratio 3.95; 95%CI 1.3, 12.5; p=0.02). Thus weight loss may improve oncological outcomes in women with obesity-associated endometrial neoplastic abnormalities treated with progestin

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used