Rosanne M Kho1, Vrunda B Desai2, Peter E Schwartz3, Jason D Wright4, Cary P Gross5, Lindsey M Hutchison6, Francis P Boscoe6, Haiqun Lin7, Xiao Xu8. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr. Kho). 2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences (Drs. Desai, Schwartz, and Xu); CooperSurgical Inc., Trumbull (Dr. Desai), Connecticut. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences (Drs. Desai, Schwartz, and Xu). 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York (Dr. Wright). 5. Department of Internal Medicine (Dr. Gross); Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center (Drs. Gross and Xu), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven. 6. New York State Cancer Registry, New York State Department of Health, Albany (Dr. Boscoe and Ms. Hutchison), New York. 7. Division of Nursing Science, Rutgers University School of Nursing (Dr. Lin); Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health (Dr. Lin), Newark, New Jersey. 8. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences (Drs. Desai, Schwartz, and Xu); Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center (Drs. Gross and Xu), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven. Electronic address: xiao.xu@yale.edu.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of endometrial sampling for preoperative detection of uterine leiomyosarcoma in women undergoing hysterectomy, identify factors associated with missed diagnosis, and compare the outcomes of patients who had a preoperative diagnosis with those of patients who had a missed diagnosis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using linked data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System and New York State Cancer Registry from 2003 to 2015. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient encounters at civilian hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers in New York State. PATIENTS: Women with uterine leiomyosarcoma who underwent a hysterectomy and a preoperative endometrial sampling within 90 days before the hysterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Endometrial sampling. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 79 patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma met the sample eligibility criteria. Of these patients, 46 (58.2%) were diagnosed preoperatively, and 33 (41.8%) were diagnosed postoperatively. Patients in the 2 groups did not differ significantly in age, race/ethnicity, bleeding symptoms, or comorbidities assessed. In multivariable regression analysis, women who had endometrial sampling performed with hysteroscopy (compared with women who had endeometrial sampling performed without hysteroscopy) had a higher likelihood of preoperative diagnosis (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-6.42). Patients with localized stage (vs distant stage) or tumor size >11 cm (vs <8 cm) were less likely to be diagnosed preoperatively (aRR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.89, and aRR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.99, respectively). Supracervical hysterectomy was not performed in any of the patients whose leiomyosarcoma was diagnosed preoperatively compared with 21.2% of the patients who were diagnosed postoperatively (p = .002). CONCLUSION: Endometrial sampling detected leiomyosarcoma preoperatively in 58.2% of the patients. The use of hysteroscopy with endometrial sampling improved preoperative detection of leiomyosarcoma by threefold. Patients with a missed diagnosis had a higher risk of undergoing suboptimal surgical management at the time of their index surgery.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of endometrial sampling for preoperative detection of uterine leiomyosarcoma in women undergoing hysterectomy, identify factors associated with missed diagnosis, and compare the outcomes of patients who had a preoperative diagnosis with those of patients who had a missed diagnosis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using linked data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System and New York State Cancer Registry from 2003 to 2015. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient encounters at civilian hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers in New York State. PATIENTS: Women with uterine leiomyosarcoma who underwent a hysterectomy and a preoperative endometrial sampling within 90 days before the hysterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Endometrial sampling. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 79 patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma met the sample eligibility criteria. Of these patients, 46 (58.2%) were diagnosed preoperatively, and 33 (41.8%) were diagnosed postoperatively. Patients in the 2 groups did not differ significantly in age, race/ethnicity, bleeding symptoms, or comorbidities assessed. In multivariable regression analysis, women who had endometrial sampling performed with hysteroscopy (compared with women who had endeometrial sampling performed without hysteroscopy) had a higher likelihood of preoperative diagnosis (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-6.42). Patients with localized stage (vs distant stage) or tumor size >11 cm (vs <8 cm) were less likely to be diagnosed preoperatively (aRR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.89, and aRR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.99, respectively). Supracervical hysterectomy was not performed in any of the patients whose leiomyosarcoma was diagnosed preoperatively compared with 21.2% of the patients who were diagnosed postoperatively (p = .002). CONCLUSION: Endometrial sampling detected leiomyosarcoma preoperatively in 58.2% of the patients. The use of hysteroscopy with endometrial sampling improved preoperative detection of leiomyosarcoma by threefold. Patients with a missed diagnosis had a higher risk of undergoing suboptimal surgical management at the time of their index surgery.
Authors: Chantal B Bartels; Kamaria C Cayton; Farah S Chuong; Kristine Holthouser; Sara E Arian; Tara Abraham; James H Segars Journal: Clin Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 2.190
Authors: Francesco Raspagliesi; Giuseppa Maltese; Giorgio Bogani; Giovanni Fucà; Stefano Lepori; Pierandrea De Iaco; Myriam Perrone; Giovanni Scambia; Gennaro Cormio; Stefano Bogliolo; Alice Bergamini; Giuseppe Bifulco; Paolo Giovanni Casali; Domenica Lorusso Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Emily M Hinchcliff; Katharine M Esselen; Jaclyn C Watkins; Titilope Oduyebo; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Marcela G Del Carmen; Bradley J Quade; Michael G Muto Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Nehalennia van Hanegem; Marileen M C Prins; Marlies Y Bongers; Brent C Opmeer; Daljit Singh Sahota; Ben Willem J Mol; Anne Timmermans Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2015-12-19 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Jason D Wright; Thomas J Herzog; Jennifer Tsui; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Gary Levy; Micah J Hill; Stephanie Beall; Shvetha M Zarek; James H Segars; William H Catherino Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 3.412