Yusuf Aytac Tohma1, Gogsen Onalan1, Sertac Esin1, Hanifi Sahin2, Dide Aysun1, Esra Kuscu1, Ali Haberal1, Hulusi Bulent Zeyneloglu3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baskent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Malatya Teaching and Research Hospital, Malatya, Turkey. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baskent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey, hulusi.zeyneloglu@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the literature, there is no detailed analysis on the prediction factors for premalignancy/malignancy within endometrial polyps (EPs) in infertile patients. In this study, we aimed to determine the frequency of endometrial premalignancy/malignancy within EPs in infertile patients undergoing office hysteroscopic polypectomy and identify the factors that can potentially predict an endometrial premalignancy/malignancy within EPs. METHOD: A total of 957 infertile patients undergoing office hysteroscopy were diagnosed with EPs between February 2011 and August 2018. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the pathological examination of EPs as benign (Group 1; n = 939) and premalignant/malignant (Group 2; n = 18). The medical records of all patients included in the study were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: In this cohort, prevalence of endometrial premalignancy/malignancy within EPs was 18/957 (1.88%). On univariate analysis, age, polyp size, diabetes, hypertension, and causes of infertility did not differ between the 2 groups. On multivariate analysis, diffuse polypoid appearance of the endometrial cavity on office hysteroscopy (hazard ratio [HR] 4.1; 95% CI 1.576-10.785), duration of infertility, (HR 4; 95% CI 1.279-12.562), and body mass index (HR 7.9; 95% CI 2.591-24.258) were found to be independent predictors of endometrial premalignancy/malignancy within polyps in infertile patients. CONCLUSION: When diffuse polypoid appearance of the endometrial cavity is detected in an infertile patient during office hysteroscopy, hysteroscopy-guided resection and endometrial curettage should be performed. The pathological specimen should be sent for histopathological evaluation to diagnose possible endometrial premalignancy/malignancy within polyps.
BACKGROUND: In the literature, there is no detailed analysis on the prediction factors for premalignancy/malignancy within endometrial polyps (EPs) in infertilepatients. In this study, we aimed to determine the frequency of endometrial premalignancy/malignancy within EPs in infertilepatients undergoing office hysteroscopic polypectomy and identify the factors that can potentially predict an endometrial premalignancy/malignancy within EPs. METHOD: A total of 957 infertilepatients undergoing office hysteroscopy were diagnosed with EPs between February 2011 and August 2018. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the pathological examination of EPs as benign (Group 1; n = 939) and premalignant/malignant (Group 2; n = 18). The medical records of all patients included in the study were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: In this cohort, prevalence of endometrial premalignancy/malignancy within EPs was 18/957 (1.88%). On univariate analysis, age, polyp size, diabetes, hypertension, and causes of infertility did not differ between the 2 groups. On multivariate analysis, diffuse polypoid appearance of the endometrial cavity on office hysteroscopy (hazard ratio [HR] 4.1; 95% CI 1.576-10.785), duration of infertility, (HR 4; 95% CI 1.279-12.562), and body mass index (HR 7.9; 95% CI 2.591-24.258) were found to be independent predictors of endometrial premalignancy/malignancy within polyps in infertilepatients. CONCLUSION: When diffuse polypoid appearance of the endometrial cavity is detected in an infertilepatient during office hysteroscopy, hysteroscopy-guided resection and endometrial curettage should be performed. The pathological specimen should be sent for histopathological evaluation to diagnose possible endometrial premalignancy/malignancy within polyps.