Comparison of the effects and safety of dydrogesterone and medroxyprogesterone acetate on endometrial hyperplasia without atypia: a randomized controlled non-inferior phase Ⅲ clinical study / 中华妇产科杂志

Objective: To compare the effects and safety of dydrogesterone (DG) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) on the treatment in patients with endometrial hyperplasia without atypia (EH). Methods: This was a single-center, open-label, prospective non-inferior randomized controlled phase Ⅲ trial. From February 2019 to November 2021, patients with EH admitted to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University were recruited. Enrolled patients were stratified according to the pathological types of simple hyperplasia (SH) or complex hyperplasia (CH), and were randomised to receive MPA or DG. Untill May 14, 2022, the median follow-up time after complete response (CR) was 9.3 months (1.1-17.2 months). The primary endpoint was the 6-month CR rate (6m-CR rate). The secondary endpoints included the 3-month CR rate (3m-CR rate), adverse events rate, recurrence rate, and pregnancy rate in one year after CR. Results: (1) A total of 292 patients with EH were enrolled in the study with the median age of 39 years (31-45 years). A total of 135 SH patients were randomly assigned to MPA group (n=67) and DG group (n=68), and 157 CH patients were randomly assigned to MPA group (n=79) and DG group (n=78). (2) Among 292 patients, 205 patients enrolled into the primary endpoint analysis, including 92 SH patients and 113 CH patients, with 100 patients in MPA group and 105 in DG group, respectively. The 6m-CR rate of MPA group and DG group were 90.0% (90/100) and 88.6% (93/105) respectively, and there were no statistical significance (χ2=0.11, P=0.741), with the rate difference (RD) was -1.4% (95%CI:-9.9%-7.0%). Stratified by the pathology types, the 6m-CR rate of SH patients was 93.5% (86/92), and MPA group and DG group were respectively 91.1% (41/45) and 95.7% (45/47); and the 6m-CR rate of CH patients was 85.8% (97/113), and MPA group and DG group were 89.1% (49/55) and 82.8% (48/58) respectively. The 6m-CR rates of the two treatments had no statistical significance either (all P>0.05). A total of 194 EH patients enrolled into the secondary endpoint analysis, including 88 SH patients and 106 CH patients, and 96 patients in MPA group and 98 in DG group, respectively. The 3m-CR rate of SH patients were 87.5% (77/88), while the 3m-CR rates of MPA group and DG group were 90.7% (39/43) and 84.4% (38/45), respectively; the 3m-CR rate of CH patients was 66.0% (70/106), and MPA group and DG group had the same 3m-CR rate of 66.0% (35/53). No statistical significance was found between the two treatments both in SH and CH patients (all P>0.05). (3) The incidence of adverse events between MPA group and DG group had no statistical significance (P>0.05). (4) A total of 93 SH patients achieved CR, and the cumulative recurrence rate in one year after CR were 5.9% and 0 in MPA group and DG group, respectively. While 112 CH patients achieved CR, and the cumulative recurrence rate in one year after CR were 8.8% and 6.5% in MPA group and DG group, respectively. There were no statistical significance between two treatment groups (all P>0.05). Among the 93 SH patients, 10 patients had family planning but no pregnancy happened during the follow-up period. Among the 112 CH patients, 21 were actively preparing for pregnancy, and the pregnancy rate and live-birth rate in one year after CR in MPA group were 7/9 and 2/7, while in DG group were respectively 4/12 and 2/4, and there were no statistical significance in pregnancy rate and live-birth rate between the two treatment groups (all P>0.05). Conclusions: Compared with MPA, DG is of good efficacy and safety in treating EH. DG is a favorable alternative treatment for EH patients.

Blockade of phospholipid scramblase 1 with its N-terminal domain antibody reduces tumorigenesis of colorectal carcinomas in vitro and in vivo.

BACKGROUND: Membrane-bound phospholipid scramblase 1 (PLSCR1) is involved in both lipid trafficking and cell signaling. Previously, we showed that PLSCR1 is overexpressed in many colorectal carcinomas (CRCs). In the present study, we investigated the tumorigenic role of PLSCR1 in CRC and suggest that it is a potential therapeutic target. METHODS: To identify PLSCR1 as a therapeutic target, we studied the tumorigenic properties of CRC cell lines treated with a monoclonal antibody (NP1) against the N-terminus of PLSCR1 in vitro and in vivo. We also investigated cell cycle status and epidermal growth factor receptor-related pathways and downstream effectors of PLSCR1 after blocking its function with NP1. RESULTS: Treating CRC cells with NP1 in vitro and in vivo decreased cell proliferation, anchorage-independent growth, migration, and invasion. Adding NP1 to the CRC cell line HT29 caused arrest at G1/S. Treating HT29 cells with NP1 significantly decreased the expression of cyclin D1 and phosphorylation levels of Src, the adaptor protein Shc, and Erks. The reduced level of cyclin D1 led to an increase in the activated form of the tumor suppressor retinoblastoma protein via dephosphorylation. These actions led to attenuation of tumorigenesis. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, PLSCR1 may serve as a potential therapeutic target for CRC.