STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether hysteroscopic imaging can contribute to decrease the rate of undetected endometrial carcinomas concurrent with atypical hyperplasia diagnosed by endometrial biopsy. DESIGN: Retrospective study. DESIGN CLASSIFICATION: Canadian Task Force Classification II-3. SETTING: Public hospital. PATIENTS: Hysteroscopic reports of 25 menopausal patients undergoing endometrial biopsy yielding a diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia were reviewed. On the basis of this diagnosis, all patients were treated by hysterectomy, and the pathologic findings on the uterine specimen were correlated with the diagnoses obtained by hysteroscopic view. INTERVENTIONS: Hysteroscopy was video-assisted and carried out with normal saline solution used as liquid distension medium; a 5-mm sheathed hysteroscope, with a working channel, was used for each examination. After hysteroscopic inspection, an endometrial sampling targeted under vision was performed by mechanical or electrosurgical instrumentation. When extensive features of hyperplastic or neoplastic growth were observed, we combined a blind sampling procedure with Vabra-curettage. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of hysteroscopic inspection to foresee the diagnosis of endometrial cancer incidentally detected on hysterectomy specimen. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: On the basis of histopathologic study of uterine specimens, non atypical hyperplasias were detected in 3 patients, the diagnosis of complex atypical hyperplasia was confirmed in 11 patients, whereas a concurrent infiltrating endometrial adenocarcinoma was detected in 11 patients (44.0%). In the 14 patients with diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia, no feature suggesting endometrial malignancy was reported by hysteroscopic inspection. In the 11 cases showing infiltrating carcinomas, hysteroscopic view was consistent with endometrial malignancy in 9 patients and with endometrial hyperplasia in 2 patients. An intramucous endometrial carcinoma without evidence of myometrial invasion was found on hysterectomy specimens of these two latter patients. From these figures, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of hysteroscopy to foresee a diagnosis of infiltrating carcinoma were 84.6%, 100%, 87.5%, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hysteroscopic view is a sensitive and specific method to identify among patients with a diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia on endometrial biopsy those with a coexisting infiltrating carcinoma.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether hysteroscopic imaging can contribute to decrease the rate of undetected endometrial carcinomas concurrent with atypical hyperplasia diagnosed by endometrial biopsy. DESIGN: Retrospective study. DESIGN CLASSIFICATION: Canadian Task Force Classification II-3. SETTING: Public hospital. PATIENTS: Hysteroscopic reports of 25 menopausal patients undergoing endometrial biopsy yielding a diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia were reviewed. On the basis of this diagnosis, all patients were treated by hysterectomy, and the pathologic findings on the uterine specimen were correlated with the diagnoses obtained by hysteroscopic view. INTERVENTIONS: Hysteroscopy was video-assisted and carried out with normal saline solution used as liquid distension medium; a 5-mm sheathed hysteroscope, with a working channel, was used for each examination. After hysteroscopic inspection, an endometrial sampling targeted under vision was performed by mechanical or electrosurgical instrumentation. When extensive features of hyperplastic or neoplastic growth were observed, we combined a blind sampling procedure with Vabra-curettage. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of hysteroscopic inspection to foresee the diagnosis of endometrial cancer incidentally detected on hysterectomy specimen. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: On the basis of histopathologic study of uterine specimens, non atypical hyperplasias were detected in 3 patients, the diagnosis of complex atypical hyperplasia was confirmed in 11 patients, whereas a concurrent infiltrating endometrial adenocarcinoma was detected in 11 patients (44.0%). In the 14 patients with diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia, no feature suggesting endometrial malignancy was reported by hysteroscopic inspection. In the 11 cases showing infiltrating carcinomas, hysteroscopic view was consistent with endometrial malignancy in 9 patients and with endometrial hyperplasia in 2 patients. An intramucous endometrial carcinoma without evidence of myometrial invasion was found on hysterectomy specimens of these two latter patients. From these figures, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of hysteroscopy to foresee a diagnosis of infiltrating carcinoma were 84.6%, 100%, 87.5%, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hysteroscopic view is a sensitive and specific method to identify among patients with a diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia on endometrial biopsy those with a coexisting infiltrating carcinoma.
Authors: Salvatore Giovanni Vitale; Gaetano Riemma; Jose Carugno; Benito Chiofalo; George Angelos Vilos; Stefano Cianci; Mehmet Sukru Budak; Bernardo Portugal Lasmar; Antonio Raffone; Ilker Kahramanoglu Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 1.241