Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · September 17, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological malignancy in Australia. Patients diagnosed in their reproductive window may desire a fertility-sparing approach, opposed to standard surgical care. International guidelines on fertility-sparing management exist; however, these highlight the lack of high-level evidence to support the recommendations. There are no Australian-specific guidelines or registries, leading to uncertainty as to how patients are managed locally. AIM: To survey clinicians in Australia regarding fertility-sparing management of endometrial cancer, to identify areas of consensus and variation, barriers to care and research priorities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 47-item online survey was distributed to clinicians who manage patients with endometrial cancer in Australia between November 2024 and January 2025. Responses were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Of 70 eligible clinicians, 56% responded. There was agreement on appropriate candidate selection for FIGO grade 1 disease with absent/focal myoinvasion, use of hysteroscopy for diagnosis, and preference for levonorgestrel intra-uterine device as initial therapy. Opinions were divided on management of patients with Lynch syndrome or more extensive myoinvasion, the diagnostic utility of endometrial pipelle, and treatment of recurrences. POLE mutation testing and hysteroscopic resection were uncommon practices. Most respondents referred patients to fertility specialists, while other members of the multi-disciplinary team were less frequently utilised. The most frequent research priorities were weight-loss strategies (31%) and molecular profiling (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in Australia have common approaches to diagnosis and first-line therapy, but there is variation in patient selection, surveillance and engagement with a multi-disciplinary team. These discrepancies highlight the potential benefits of local guidelines and further research.