Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital

Hysteroscopic resectoscope-directed biopsies and outpatient endometrial sampling for assessment of tumor histology in women with endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Endometrial scratch injury with office hysteroscopy before IVF/ICSI: A randomised controlled trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Predictors of emergency cesarean section in women with preexisting diabetes

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Routine use of antenatal nonstress tests in pregnant women with diabetes-What is the practice?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. High maternal age at first and subsequent child births in Denmark in the mid-1800s-Letter to the editor

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic efficiency of outpatient endometrial sampling (OES) and hysteroscopic resectoscope-directed biopsies (HYbiopsy) to distinguish between endometrial cancer (EC) and atypical hyperplasia (AH) and to assess tumor type and grade (histotype) in women with EC.

DESIGN: Patients with AH or EC (n = 266) among 1013 patients consecutively referred because of postmenopausal bleeding were included. Identification of EC versus AH, and unfavorable tumor types (endometrioid grade 3 or non-endometrioid tumors) using OES and HYbiopsy was compared to final histopathology at hysterectomy. AH or EC were identified by OES in 184 patients and by HYbiopsy in212.

RESULTS: OES had only sufficient tissue samples in 72.7% of intended samples. Even when OES did provide sufficient material, addition of HYbiopsy was a better technique than OES alone to distinguish between EC and AH, with an AUC of 95.9% and 79.8%; sensitivity of 97.4% and 64.6% and a specificity of 94.4% and 95.0%, respectively (p = 0.008). AH was falsely diagnosed with OES in 58 (35.4%) of 164 women with a final diagnose of EC. A final diagnosis of stage 1b or more was seen in 22 of these 58 women, while 5 of 194 patients with EC all stage 1a grade 1 had AH by HYbiopsy. HYbiopsy had higher correlation in assessment of tumor type and grade than OES, but OES and HYbiopsy had comparable AUC of 90.3% and 92.4% for identification of unfavorable tumors when tumor histotype was successfully identified. Regarding identification of unfavorable tumors (n = 57), a successfully assessment of histotype by OES combined with HYbiopsy in women without successfully diagnosed histotype by OES alone had AUC of 91.3%.

CONCLUSION: Addition of HYbiopsy may improve diagnosis when preoperative OES identifies AH or is insufficient for explicit diagnosis of tumor type and grade. However, there is limited benefit of the addition of HYbiopsy in the presence of definite diagnosis of grade 1-2 endometrioid tumors by OES.

Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology
Pages (from-to)173-179
Number of pages7
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2020

ID: 61425419