Hysteroscopic biopsy compared with endometrial curettage to assess the preoperative rate of atypical hyperplasia underestimating endometrial carcinoma.
Atypical endometrial hyperplasia
Dilatation and curettage
Endometrial biopsy
Endometrial cancer
Hysteroscopic biopsy
Hysteroscopy
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2023
09 2023
Historique:
received:
27
03
2023
accepted:
25
04
2023
medline:
17
7
2023
pubmed:
10
5
2023
entrez:
9
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the rate of atypical hyperplasia (AH) underestimating endometrial cancer (EC) comparing endometrial biopsy (EB) accomplished by hysteroscopic biopsy with dilatation and curettage (D&C). Second, to compare the two techniques to foresee EC grading. This trial was based on the findings of two Gynecological Departments within the same Public Utility, sharing pathological service and database but routinely performing EB under hysteroscopic visualization (group A) or hysteroscopy followed by D&C (group B). We retrieved the clinical data of patients showing EC on hysterectomy throughout a 10-year period. The accuracy of hysteroscopic-view diagnosis and EB pathology were compared, having the pathologic findings of hysterectomy as reference. A total of 161 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 109 and 52 were included in groups A and B, respectively. In group A, 32.1% of patients underwent EB in an out-patient setting. To foresee EC, hysteroscopic view showed a sensitivity of 82.5% and 70.2% in groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.019). An underestimation of EC diagnosed as AH on EB was found in 20 patients (12.4%). Among these, 18 (16.5%) and 2 (3.8%) were included in groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.022). In group A, a fault diagnosis of AH resulted higher when EB was performed as out-patient setting (P = 0.006). EB allowed the grading of EC in 73.3% and 90.3% of patients in groups A and B, respectively. The agreement was 73.7% and 85.1%, leading to moderate (κ = 0.56) and good (κ = 0.77) "κ" coefficient of concordance for groups A and B, respectively. EB performed by D&C lowers the rate of AH underestimating concurrent EC and improves the grading agreement when compared with hysteroscopic sampling.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37160470
doi: 10.1007/s00404-023-07060-2
pii: 10.1007/s00404-023-07060-2
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
971-979Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Lu KH, Broaddus RR (2020) Endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med 383:2053–2064. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1514010
doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1514010
pubmed: 33207095
Brownfoot FC, Hickey M, Catarina AW, Arora V, McNally O (2014) Complex atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium: differences in outcome following conservative management of pre and postmenopausal women. Reprod Sci 21:1244–1248. https://doi.org/10.1177/193371911452217
doi: 10.1177/193371911452217
pubmed: 24516039
Edris FE, Vilos AG, Al-Mubarak A, Ettler HC, Hollet-Caines J, Abu-Rafea B (2007) Resectoscopic surgery may be an alternative to hysterectomy in high-risk women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2006.08.007
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2006.08.007
pubmed: 17218233
Costales AB, Schmeler KM, Broaddus R, Soliman PT, Westin SN, Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M (2014) Clinically significant endometrial cancer risk following a diagnosis of complex atypical hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol 135:451–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.008
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.008
pubmed: 25316176
pmcid: 4268403
Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R, Silverberg S, Lim PC, Burke JJ, Alberts D, Curtin J (2006) Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia. A gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer 106:812–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/CnCr.21650
doi: 10.1002/CnCr.21650
pubmed: 16400639
Karamursel BS, Guven S, Tulunay G, Kucukali T, Ayhan A (2005) Which surgical procedure for patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia? Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:127–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1048.891X.2005.15013.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1048.891X.2005.15013.x
pubmed: 15670307
Suh-Burgmann E, Hung YY, Armstrong MA (2009) Complex atypical hyperplasia. The risk of unrecognized adenocarcinoma and value of preoperative dilatation and curettage. Obstet Gynecol 114:523–529. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.06013e3181b190d5
doi: 10.1097/AOG.06013e3181b190d5
pubmed: 19701030
Antonsen SL, Ulrich L, Hegdall C (2012) Patients with atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium should be treated in oncological centers. Gynecol Oncol 125:124–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyno.2011.12.436
doi: 10.1016/j.gyno.2011.12.436
pubmed: 22198048
Shutter J, Wright TC (2005) Prevalence of underlying adenocarcinoma in women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol 24:313–318. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pgp.0000164598.26969.c3
doi: 10.1097/01.pgp.0000164598.26969.c3
pubmed: 16175074
Allison KH, Reed SD, Voigt LF (2008) Diagnosing endometrial hyperplasia: why is it so difficult to agree? Am J Surg Pathol 32:691–698. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e318159a2a0
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318159a2a0
pubmed: 18347507
pmcid: 2682169
Kurman RJ, Carangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH (Eds) (2014) WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs, World Health Organization classification of tumours, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), IVth Edition, Lyon
Dijkhuizen FPHL, Mol BWJ, Brolmann HAM, Heintz APM (2000) The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. Cancer 89:1765–1772
doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20001015)89:8<1765::AID-CNCR17>3.0.CO;2-F
pubmed: 11042572
Bourdel N, Chauvet P, Tognazza E, Pereira B, Botchorishvili R, Canis, (2016) Sampling in atypical endometrial hyperplasia: which method results in the lowest underestimation of endometrial cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23:692–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.03.017
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.03.017
pubmed: 27058769
Di Spiezio SA, Saccone G, Carugno J, Pacheco LA, Zizolfi B, Haimovich S, Clark TJ (2022) Endometrial biopsy under direct hysteroscopic visualization versus blind endometrial sampling for the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Facts Wiews Vis Obgyn 14:103–110. https://doi.org/10.52054/FVVO.14.2.023
doi: 10.52054/FVVO.14.2.023
Zhang C, Wang EY, Liu F, Sung CJ, Quddus MR, Ou J, Lomme M, Lawrence WD (2018) Routine histologic features in complex atypical hyperplasia can predict the presence of endometrial carcinoma: a clinicopathological study of 222 cases. Hum Pathol 80:40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2018.03.009
doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.03.009
pubmed: 29559235
Gimpelson RJ, Rappold HO (1988) A comparative study between panoramic hysteroscopy with directed biopsies and dilatation and curettage. A review of 276 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 158:489–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(88)90011-7
doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(88)90011-7
pubmed: 3348309
Epstein E, Ramirez A, Skoog L, Valentin L (2001) Dilatation and curettage fails to detect most focal lesions in the uterine cavity in women with post-menopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:1131–1136. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.8012.x
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.8012.x
pubmed: 11846711
Ceci O, Bettocchi S, Pellegrino A, Impedovo L, Di Venere R, Pansini N (2002) Comparison of hysteroscopic and hysterectomy findings for assessing the diagnostic accuracy of office hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 78:628–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03246-6
doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03246-6
pubmed: 12215345
Garuti G, Sambruni I, Colonnelli M, Luerti M (2001) Accuracy of hysteroscopy in predicting histopathology of endometrium in 1500 women. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 8:207–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1074-3804(05)60579-8
doi: 10.1016/s1074-3804(05)60579-8
pubmed: 11342726
Dueholm M, Hjorth IMD, Secher P, Jorgensen A, Ortoft G (2015) Structured hysteroscopic evaluation of endometrium in women with postmenopausal bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:1215–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.06.018
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.06.018
pubmed: 26140830
Ianieri MM, Staniscia T, Pontrelli G, Di Spiezio SA, Manzi FS, Recchi M, Liberati M, Ceccaroni M (2016) A new hysteroscopic risk scoring system for diagnosing endometrial hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23:712–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.02.017
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.02.017
pubmed: 26940400
Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK, Meyer L, Gress DM, Byrd DR, Winchester DP (2017) The eighth edition AJCC cancer staging manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 67:93–99
doi: 10.3322/caac.21388
pubmed: 28094848
Van Hanegem N, Prins M, Bongers MY, Opmeer BC, Sahota DS, Mol BMJ, Timmermans A (2016) The accuracy of endometrial sampling in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 197:147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.12.008
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.12.008
pubmed: 26748390
Garuti G, Mirra M, Luerti M (2006) Hysteroscopic view in atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a correlation with pathologic findings on hysterectomy specimens. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13:325–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2006.03.010
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2006.03.010
pubmed: 16825075
Bedner R, Rzepka-Gorska I (2007) Hysteroscopy with directed biopsy versus dilatation and curettage for the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in perimenopausal women. Eur J Gynecol Oncol 28:400–402
Lasmar RB, Barrozo PRM, De Oliveira MAP, Coutinho ESF, Dias R (2006) Validation of hysteroscopic view in cases of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13:409–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2006.05.002
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2006.05.002
pubmed: 16962523
Garcia TS, Appel M, Rivero R, Kliemann L, Wender MCO (2017) Agreement between preoperative endometrial sampling and surgical specimen findings in endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 27:473–478. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000922
doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000922
pubmed: 28187097
Martinelli F, Ditto A, Bogani G, Signorelli M, Chiappa V, Lorusso D, Haeusler E, Raspagliesi F (2017) Accuracy of pre-operative hysteroscopic guided biopsy for predicting final pathology in uterine malignancies. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143:1275–1279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-017-2371-0
doi: 10.1007/s00432-017-2371-0
pubmed: 28247037
Trimble CL, Method M, Leitao M, Lu K, Ioffe O, Hampton M, Higgins R, Zaino R, Mutter GL, for the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Practice Committee (2012) Management of endometrial precancers. Obstet Gynecol 120:1160–1175. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.06013e31826bb121
doi: 10.1097/aog.06013e31826bb121
pubmed: 23090535
pmcid: 3800154
Visser NCM, Reijnen C, Massuger L, Nactegaal ID, Bulten J, Pijnenbarg J (2017) Accuracy of endometrial sampling in endometrial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 130:803–813. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002261
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002261
pubmed: 28885397
Lukanovic D, Matjasic M, Kobal B (2020) Accuracy of preoperative sampling diagnosis for predicting final pathology in patients with endometrial carcinoma: a review. Transl Cancer Res 9:7785–7796. https://doi.org/10.21037/tcr-20-2228
doi: 10.21037/tcr-20-2228
pubmed: 35117381
pmcid: 8798103
Leitao MM, Kehoe S, Barakat RR, Alektior K, Gattoc LP, Rabbit C, Chi DS, Soslow RA, Abu Rustum NR (2009) Comparison of D&C and office endometrial biopsy accuracy in patients with FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 113:105–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.017
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.017
pubmed: 19167049
Di Spiezio SA, De Angelis MC, Della Corte L, Carugno J, Zizolfi B, Guadagno E, Gencarelli A, Cecchi E, Simoncini T, Bifulco G, Zullo F, Insabato L (2020) Should endometrial biopsy under direct hysteroscopic visualization using the grasp technique become the new gold standard for the preoperative evaluation of the patient with endometrial cancer? Gynecol Oncol 158:347–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.012
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.012
Rodolakis A, Scambia G, Planchamp F, Acien M, Di Spiezio SA, Farrugia M, Grynberg M, Pakiz M, Paviakis K, Vermeulen N, Zannoni G, Zapardiel I, Macklon LT (2023) ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 33:208–222. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2022-004047
doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004047
pubmed: 36746507