Uterine cancer |
|
|
|
|
|
Early stage endometrial cancer |
HT acceptable |
Barakat et al. 200631 |
randomized control trial |
1236 patients, no difference in recurrence rate with the use of HT |
|
|
Shim et al. 201432 |
meta-analysis |
no increased risk of recurrence |
Advanced stage endometrial cancer |
HT not recommended |
Sinno et al. 20202 |
NAMS clinical practice statement |
no data supporting use of HT |
Uterine sarcoma |
HT not recommended |
George et al. 201421 |
phase 2 trial |
27 patients, a potential response to anti-estrogen therapy (Letrozole) |
|
|
Sinno et al. 20202 |
NAMS clinical practice statement |
lack of data regarding HT safety |
|
Ovarian cancer |
|
|
|
|
|
High grade serous |
HT acceptable |
Li et al. 201533 |
meta-analysis |
HT is not associated with poorer clinical outcome, epithelial ovarian cancers |
Low grade serous |
HT not recommended |
Gershenson et al. 201234 |
retrospective study |
64 patients, high rate of hormone receptor expression and maintenance anti-endocrine therapy |
|
|
Sinno et al. 20202 |
NAMS clinical practice statement |
not sufficient safety data available |
Endometrioid |
HT acceptable |
Power et al. 201635 |
retrospective cohort data |
391 patients, HT is not associated with decreased disease-free or overall survival |
Clear cell |
HT not recommended |
Didar et al. 202322 |
meta-analysis |
increased risk of venous thromboembolism events |
Mucinous |
HT acceptable |
Li et al. 201533 |
meta-analysis |
HT is not associated with poorer clinical outcome, epithelial ovarian cancers |
|
Cervical cancer |
HT acceptable |
Ploch et al. 198736 |
prospective study |
120 patients, no difference in recurrence rate with the use of HT |