Read Original Story

IUDs May Help Treat Endometrial Cancer


4 Star

IUDs May Help Treat Endometrial Cancer

Our Review Summary

The standard treatment for endometrial cancer is hysterectomy, or surgical removal of the uterus.  However, some women, including younger women who wish to preserve their fertility, may prefer non-surgical alternatives. A study published in the Annals of Oncology suggests that younger women (under age 40) with pre-cancerous lesions (known as hyperplasia) or early-stage cancer, may be able to safely treat their condition with the progestin IUD (brand name Mirena).

This story does a good job reporting on the new study and its implications. It gives the reader enough relevant information to evaluate the strength of the new study and the information that it may add to clinical practice. It provides important caveats for interpreting the results, such as the small size of the study and preliminary results. It quotes independent experts who provide context for the information.

The story could have been improved by mentioning the cost of the IUD and mentioning some potential harms of the treatment.


Why This Matters

Endometrial cancer is rare in women under 40. However, for these women, who may wish to preserve their childbearing ability, there have been few alternatives to hysterectomy.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not mention the costs of the IUD or implantation.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


The story adequately quantifies the benefits of treatment.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Although the progestin IUD is well tolerated and there were no adverse events in the study, the story makes no mention of any potential harms.  The adverse effect outcome measure reported in the study was effects or complications severe enough to suspend treatment. The concurrent GnRH analog treatment does have side effects (temporary menopausal symptoms) that may be important to some women, while not warranting suspension of treatment.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


The story does a good job of describing the current study so that the reader can evaluate for themselves how persuasive the results are.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story mentions that only 5% of cases of endometrial cancer occur in women under 40, and is careful to emphasize that this study was performed in a ‘select group of patients’.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?


The story quotes one independent expert who provides valuable perspective. We are curious, though, why/how this story quotes the same U.S. expert who comments in the competing HealthDay story.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


The story mentions hysterectomy as the primary alternative.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


Although the progestin IUD is not new, using it to treat endometrial cancer is a relatively new idea.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


Because the story quotes one expert who is not affiliated with the study, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.

Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.