OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of D&C vs office endometrial biopsy in predicting final post-hysterectomy FIGO grade in patients diagnosed with a preoperative FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We reviewed 1423 consecutive cases of endometrial cancer treated at our institution between 1/1/93 and 5/31/06 and identified cases with an unequivocal preoperative endometrial biopsy demonstrating FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. All cases were pathologically confirmed and underwent surgical therapy at our institution. FIGO grade and histology diagnosed in the hysterectomy specimen were noted. The findings in the hysterectomy specimen were then compared between those patients who had a preoperative D&C vs an office endometrial sampling. Chi-square and Fisher-exact test were used as appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 490 cases with a preoperative FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. In 482 cases, FIGO grade was determined to be greater in 71 (14.7%) cases; in the final hysterectomy specimen, 66 (13.7%) were found to be grade 2 and 5 (1%) were found to be grades 2-3/3. Serous or clear cell histology was diagnosed in 6 (1.2%) additional cases. D&C was performed in 187 (38.6%) cases and office endometrial sampling in 298 (61.4%); in 5 cases the method used was not discernible. The final post-hysterectomy FIGO grade was higher in 16/187 (8.7%) cases diagnosed by D&C compared to 52/298 (17.4%) diagnosed by office endometrial sampling (P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative FIGO grade 1 diagnosis correlates with final grade diagnosis in 85% of cases. While D&C more accurately reflects final FIGO grade, a higher grade will be found in 8.7% of the cases at the time of hysterectomy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of D&C vs office endometrial biopsy in predicting final post-hysterectomy FIGO grade in patients diagnosed with a preoperative FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We reviewed 1423 consecutive cases of endometrial cancer treated at our institution between 1/1/93 and 5/31/06 and identified cases with an unequivocal preoperative endometrial biopsy demonstrating FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. All cases were pathologically confirmed and underwent surgical therapy at our institution. FIGO grade and histology diagnosed in the hysterectomy specimen were noted. The findings in the hysterectomy specimen were then compared between those patients who had a preoperative D&C vs an office endometrial sampling. Chi-square and Fisher-exact test were used as appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 490 cases with a preoperative FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. In 482 cases, FIGO grade was determined to be greater in 71 (14.7%) cases; in the final hysterectomy specimen, 66 (13.7%) were found to be grade 2 and 5 (1%) were found to be grades 2-3/3. Serous or clear cell histology was diagnosed in 6 (1.2%) additional cases. D&C was performed in 187 (38.6%) cases and office endometrial sampling in 298 (61.4%); in 5 cases the method used was not discernible. The final post-hysterectomy FIGO grade was higher in 16/187 (8.7%) cases diagnosed by D&C compared to 52/298 (17.4%) diagnosed by office endometrial sampling (P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative FIGO grade 1 diagnosis correlates with final grade diagnosis in 85% of cases. While D&C more accurately reflects final FIGO grade, a higher grade will be found in 8.7% of the cases at the time of hysterectomy.
Authors: Sinead H McEvoy; Stephanie Nougaret; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Elizabeth A Sadowski; Christine O Menias; Fuki Shitano; Shinya Fujii; Ramon E Sosa; Joanna G Escalon; Evis Sala; Yulia Lakhman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-10
Authors: Michelle L Torres; Amy L Weaver; Sanjeev Kumar; Stefano Uccella; Abimbola O Famuyide; William A Cliby; Sean C Dowdy; Bobbie S Gostout; Andrea Mariani Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Nicole C M Visser; Johan Bulten; Anneke A M van der Wurff; Erik A Boss; Carolien M Bronkhorst; Harrie W H Feijen; Joke E Haartsen; Hilde A D M van Herk; Ineke M de Kievit; Paul J J M Klinkhamer; Brenda M Pijlman; Marc P M L Snijders; Ingrid Vandenput; M Caroline Vos; Peter E J de Wit; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Leon F A G Massuger; Johanna M A Pijnenborg Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: L Helpman; R Kupets; A Covens; R S Saad; M A Khalifa; N Ismiil; Z Ghorab; V Dubé; S Nofech-Mozes Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 7.640