English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Breast cancer (BC) is a recognized risk factor for endometrial cancer (EC). Emerging literature indicates that it confers a higher risk of type II EC (T2EC) than type I EC (T1EC). Although some surgeons offer a prophylactic hysterectomy to BC patients referred for risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, insufficient evidence prevents this from being the standard practice. We aimed to quantify their absolute risk and relative risk (RR) of developing both EC subtypes and identify a higher-risk group that could be considered for prophylactic hysterectomy.  Methodology  This retrospective service evaluation compared patients diagnosed with BC between 2008 and 2014, who subsequently developed EC within 10 years to those who did not. Absolute risk and RR were calculated using the numbers of regional BC and EC cases within this group, alongside 2009 UK female population and EC incidence statistics. Binary logistic regression generated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for patient- and disease-specific variables.  Results  A total of 45 BC patients developed EC, 24 had T1EC and 21 had T2EC. Their RR of developing EC was greater than that of the general population (RR: 12.44, p < 0.0001). Notably, this was higher for T2EC (RR: 33.96, p < 0.001) than T1EC (RR: 8.63, p < 0.0001). Nonetheless, the absolute risk remained low. Tamoxifen exposure was significantly more prevalent among T2EC patients (adjusted OR: 79.61, p = 0.003). Increased age at BC diagnosis was associated with T1EC (adjusted OR: 1.10, p = 0.043) and T2EC (adjusted OR: 1.13, p = 0.03). Neither smoking status nor family history of BC was significantly associated with any outcome.  Conclusion  Women with BC were more likely to develop T2EC than T1EC, and although the absolute risk was low, the cumulative risk was substantial enough to warrant vigilance. Tamoxifen exposure was significantly predictive of EC, particularly T2EC, and might facilitate risk estimation. Older women at BC diagnosis who receive tamoxifen treatment should be screened and closely monitored for EC. However, given the limitations of normal screening methods for the detection of T2EC, counseling for a prophylactic hysterectomy should also be considered. Clarification of the menopausal status will help make more meaningful recommendations.

curēus

Breast Cancer Patients at Increased Risk of Developing Type II Endometrial Cancer: Relative and Absolute Risk Estimation and Implications for Counseling