Depo-Provera Versus Norethisterone Acetate in Management of Endometrial Hyperplasia Without Atypia

A. Nooh, Hussein Abdeldayem, Ehab F. Girbash, Essa M. Arafa, Khalid Atwa, Samar M. Abdel-Raouf
In: Reproductive Sciences · 2015 · vol. 23(4) , pp. 448–454 · doi:10.1177/1933719115623643 · PMID:26718306 · W2332352338
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 6 in-corpus citations
Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-12 ⓘ

Depo-Provera achieved significantly higher regression rates of nonatypical endometrial hyperplasia compared to oral norethisterone acetate over six months of treatment.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-12 · read from full text ⓘ

This randomized study compared depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) injections given every 3 months for 6 months (two doses) versus oral cyclic norethisterone acetate (15 mg daily for 14 days per cycle) for 6 months in 146 women aged 35–50 with abnormal uterine bleeding and diagnosed endometrial hyperplasia without atypia, with primary outcome defined as regression of endometrial hyperplasia and secondary outcomes including adverse effects and persistence or progression during follow-up. After 6 months, regression of nonatypical endometrial hyperplasia was higher with Depo-Provera than with norethisterone acetate (91.8% vs 67.1%), with a statistically significant between-group difference (relative risk 1.37; 95% CI 1.15–1.63; P=0.048). Adverse effects were relatively common, with moderate differences between treatments, and the paper does not detail longer-term oncologic endpoints in the provided text. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess effectiveness and safety of Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) in treatment of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) and to compare it with norethisterone acetate (NETA) as an oral progestogen treatment. One hundred forty six women aged 35 to 50 years with abnormal uterine bleeding and diagnosed as having EH were randomized to receive either Depo-Provera, one injection every 3 months for 6 months (2 doses), or oral cyclic NETA, 15 mg daily for 14 days per cycle for 6 months. Primary outcome measure was regression of EH. Secondary outcome variables were side effects of treatment, persistence/progression of EH during follow-up period. After 6 months of treatment, Depo-Provera was more successful in achieving regression of nonatypical EH than NETA (67 [91.8%] of 73 women vs 49 [67.1%] of 73, respectively), and the difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant (relative risk: 1.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.63, P = .048*). Adverse effects were relatively common with moderate differences between the 2 groups. This is the first randomized study comparing Depo-Provera with an oral progestogen as a treatment for EH. Depo-Provera is an effective and safe treatment for EH without atypia.
Full text 7,502 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess effectiveness and safety of Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) in treatment of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) and to compare it with norethisterone acetate (NETA) as an oral progestogen treatment. One hundred forty six women aged 35 to 50 years with abnormal uterine bleeding and diagnosed as having EH were randomized to receive either Depo-Provera, one injection every 3 months for 6 months (2 doses), or oral cyclic NETA, 15 mg daily for 14 days per cycle for 6 months. Primary outcome measure was regression of EH. Secondary outcome variables were side effects of treatment, persistence/progression of EH during follow-up period. After 6 months of treatment, Depo-Provera was more successful in achieving regression of nonatypical EH than NETA (67 [91.8%] of 73 women vs 49 [67.1%] of 73, respectively), and the difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant (relative risk: 1.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.63, P = .048*). Adverse effects were relatively common with moderate differences between the 2 groups. This is the first randomized study comparing Depo-Provera with an oral progestogen as a treatment for EH. Depo-Provera is an effective and safe treatment for EH without atypia. Access this article We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly. Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem. Similar content being viewed by others

References

Epplein M, Reed SD, Voigt LF, Newton KW, Holt VL, Weiss NS. Endometrial hyperplasia risk in relation to characteristics and exposures that influence endogenous hormone levels. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 168(6):563–570. Reed SD, Voigt LF, Newton KM, et al. Progestin therapy of complex endometrial hyperplasia with and without atypia. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113(3):655–662. Espíndola D, Kennedy KA, Fischer EG. Management of abnormal uterine bleeding and the pathology of endometrial hyperplasia. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2007; 34(4):717–737. Anastasiadis PG, Skaphida PG, Koutlaki NG, Galazios GC, Tsikouras PN, Liberis VA. Descriptive epidemiology of endometrial hyperplasia in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2000; 21(2):131–134. Lacey JV Jr, Chia VM. Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of progression to carcinoma. Maturitas. 2009; 63(1):39–44. Marsden DE, Hacker NF. Optimal management of endometrial hyperplasia. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001; 15(3):393–405. Gunderson CC, Fader AN, Carson KA, Bristow RE. Oncologic and reproductive outcomes with progestin therapy in women with endometrial hyperplasia and grade I adenocarcinoma:a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 125(2):477–482. Gultekin M, Dogan NU, Aksan G, Ozgul N. Management of endometrial hyperplasia. Minerva Ginecol. 2010; 62(5):433–445. Eddib A, AUaf B, Lee J, Yeh J. Risk for advanced-stage endometrial cancer in surgical specimens from patients with complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012; 73(1):38–42. Clark TJ, Neelakantan D, Gupta JK. The management of endometrial hyperplasia:an evaluation of current practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006; 125(2):259–264. Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R, et al. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia:a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2006; 106(4):812–819. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin, clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists, number 65, August 2005:management of endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106(2):413–425. Abu-Hashim H, Zayed A, Ghayaty E, El Rakhawy M. LNG-IUS treatment of non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia in perimeno-pausal women:a randomized controlled trial. J Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 24(2):128–134. Hom LC, Schnurrbusch U, BilekK, Hentschel B, Einenkel J. Risk of progression in complex and atypical endometrial hyperplasia:clinicopathologic analysis in cases with and without progestogen treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004; 14(2):348–353. Orbo A, Vereide AB, Ames M, Pettersen I, Straume B. Levonorgestrel-impregnated intrauterine device as treatment for endometrial hyperplasia:a national multicentre randomised trial. BJOG. 2014; 121(4):477–486. Bese T, Vural A, Ozturk M, et al. The effect of long-term use of progesterone therapy on proliferation and apoptosis in simple endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006; 16(2):809–813. Westhoff C. Depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (Depo-Provera):a highly effective contraceptive option with proven long-term safety. Contraception. 2003; 68(2):75–87. Haider S, Damey F. Injectable contraception. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 50(4):898–806. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long-acting reversible contraception. NICE guidelines [CG30] October 2005. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg30/guidance/cg30. Accessed December 15, 2015. El Behery MM, Saleh HS, Ibrahiem MA, Kamal EM, Kassem GA, Mohamed Mohamed ME. Levonorgestrel-Releasing intrauterine device versus dydrogesterone for management of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Reprod Sci. 2015; 22(3):329–334. Vereide AB, Ames M, Straume B, Maltau JM, Orbo A. Nuclear morphometric changes and therapy monitoring in patients with endometrial hyperplasia:a study comparing effects of intrauterine levonorgestrel and systemic medroxyprogesterone. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 91(3):526–533. Gallos ID, Krishan P, Shehmar M, Ganesan R, Gupta JK. Relapse of endometrial hyperplasia after conservative treatment:a cohort study with long-term follow-up. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(5):1231–1236. Buttini MJ, Jordan SJ, Webb PM. The effect of the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system on endometrial hyperplasia:an Australian study and systematic review. Aust N ZJ Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 49(3):316–322. Schrager S. Abnormal uterine bleeding associated with hormonal contraception. Am Fam Physician. 2002; 65(10):2073–2081. Haoula ZJ, Walker KF, Powell MC. Levonorgestrel intrauterine system as a treatment option for complex endometrial hyperplasia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 159(1):176–179. Gallos ID, Shehmar M, Thangaratinam S, Papapostolou TK, Coo-marasamy A, Gupta JK. Oral progestogens vs levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for endometrial hyperplasia:a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203(6)547.e1–e10. Demirkiran F, Yavuz E, Erenel H, Bese T, Arvas M, Sanioglu C. Which is the best technique for endometrial sampling? Aspiration (pipelle) versus dilatation and curettage (D&C). Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286(5):1277–1282. Zaino RJ, Kauderer J, Trimble CL, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia:a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2006; 106:804–811. Gallos ID, Ofinran O, Shehmar M, Coomarasamy A, Gupta JK. Current management of endometrial hyperplasia-a survey of United Kingdom consultant gynaecologists. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 158(2):305–307. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Nooh, A., Abdeldayem, H., Girbash, E.F. et al. Depo-Provera Versus Norethisterone Acetate in Management of Endometrial Hyperplasia Without Atypia. Reprod. Sci. 23, 448–454 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719115623643 Published: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719115623643

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (32)

Cited by (7)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK