Madhu Bagaria1, Nicolas Wentzensen2, Megan Clarke2, Matthew R Hopkins3, Lisa J Ahlberg3, Lois J Mc Guire3, Maureen A Lemens3, Amy L Weaver4, Ann VanOosten3, Emily Shields1, Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso3, Mark E Sherman5, Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Health System, Austin, MN, United States of America. 2. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States of America. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America. 4. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America. 5. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, United States of America. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America. Electronic address: bakkum.jamie@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Emerging technologies may enable detection of endometrial cancer with methods that are less invasive than standard biopsy methods. This study compares patient pain scores among 3 office gynecologic tract sampling methods and explores their potential determinants. METHODS: A prospective study including 3 sampling methods (tampon, Tao brush (TB), endometrial biopsy (EB)) was conducted between December 2015 and August 2017 and included women ≥45 years of age presenting with abnormal uterine bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, or thickened endometrial stripe. Patients rated pain after each sampling procedure using a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Of 428 enrolled, 190 (44.39%) patients underwent all 3 sampling methods and reported a VAS score for each. Nearly half were postmenopausal (n = 93, 48.9%); the majority were parous (172, 90.5%) of which 87.8% had at least one vaginal delivery. Among the 190 patients, the median (IQR) pain score was significantly lower for sampling via tampon (0 [0,2]) compared to TB (28 [12, 52]) or EB (32 [15, 60]) (both p < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed rank test). Among women who underwent tampon sampling, age and pain scores showed a weak positive correlation (Spearman rank correlation, r = 0.14; p = 0.006); EB sampling was associated with a weak inverse correlation between parity and pain scores (r = -0.14; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Gynecologic tract sampling using a tampon had significantly lower pain than both EB and TB. Pain with tampon sampling was positively correlated with age and pain with EB sampling was inversely correlated with parity. Pain scores for TB and EB were not significantly related to age, menopausal status, or BMI.
OBJECTIVE: Emerging technologies may enable detection of endometrial cancer with methods that are less invasive than standard biopsy methods. This study compares patient pain scores among 3 office gynecologic tract sampling methods and explores their potential determinants. METHODS: A prospective study including 3 sampling methods (tampon, Tao brush (TB), endometrial biopsy (EB)) was conducted between December 2015 and August 2017 and included women ≥45 years of age presenting with abnormal uterine bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, or thickened endometrial stripe. Patients rated pain after each sampling procedure using a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Of 428 enrolled, 190 (44.39%) patients underwent all 3 sampling methods and reported a VAS score for each. Nearly half were postmenopausal (n = 93, 48.9%); the majority were parous (172, 90.5%) of which 87.8% had at least one vaginal delivery. Among the 190 patients, the median (IQR) pain score was significantly lower for sampling via tampon (0 [0,2]) compared to TB (28 [12, 52]) or EB (32 [15, 60]) (both p < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed rank test). Among women who underwent tampon sampling, age and pain scores showed a weak positive correlation (Spearman rank correlation, r = 0.14; p = 0.006); EB sampling was associated with a weak inverse correlation between parity and pain scores (r = -0.14; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Gynecologic tract sampling using a tampon had significantly lower pain than both EB and TB. Pain with tampon sampling was positively correlated with age and pain with EB sampling was inversely correlated with parity. Pain scores for TB and EB were not significantly related to age, menopausal status, or BMI.
Authors: Peter J F Snijders; Viola M J Verhoef; Marc Arbyn; Gina Ogilvie; Silvia Minozzi; Rita Banzi; Folkert J van Kemenade; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: M J Duffy; R Napieralski; J W M Martens; P N Span; F Spyratos; F C G J Sweep; N Brunner; J A Foekens; M Schmitt Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Benjamin R Kipp; Fabiola Medeiros; Michael B Campion; Tammy J Distad; Lisa M Peterson; Gary L Keeney; Kevin C Halling; Amy C Clayton Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-08-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rebecca A Shelby; Cindy D Scipio; Tamara J Somers; Mary Scott Soo; Kevin P Weinfurt; Francis J Keefe Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Megan A Clarke; Beverly J Long; Arena Del Mar Morillo; Marc Arbyn; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Heidi Fiegl; Conny Gattringer; Andreas Widschwendter; Alois Schneitter; Angela Ramoni; Daniela Sarlay; Inge Gaugg; Georg Goebel; Hannes M Müller; Elisabeth Mueller-Holzner; Christian Marth; Martin Widschwendter Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Isaac Kinde; Chetan Bettegowda; Yuxuan Wang; Jian Wu; Nishant Agrawal; Ie-Ming Shih; Robert Kurman; Fanny Dao; Douglas A Levine; Robert Giuntoli; Richard Roden; James R Eshleman; Jesus Paula Carvalho; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Luis A Diaz Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Yuxuan Wang; Lu Li; Christopher Douville; Joshua D Cohen; Ting-Tai Yen; Isaac Kinde; Karin Sundfelt; Susanne K Kjær; Ralph H Hruban; Ie-Ming Shih; Tian-Li Wang; Robert J Kurman; Simeon Springer; Janine Ptak; Maria Popoli; Joy Schaefer; Natalie Silliman; Lisa Dobbyn; Edward J Tanner; Ana Angarita; Maria Lycke; Kirsten Jochumsen; Bahman Afsari; Ludmila Danilova; Douglas A Levine; Kris Jardon; Xing Zeng; Jocelyne Arseneau; Lili Fu; Luis A Diaz; Rachel Karchin; Cristian Tomasetti; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Amanda N Fader; Lucy Gilbert; Nickolas Papadopoulos Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 17.956