Diagnostic Utility of Deeper Level Tissue Sections of Negative Peritoneal Biopsies for Clinically Suspected Endometriosis.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Constance V Chen, Megan S Orlando, Mary Kathryn Abel, Jessica Opoku-Anane, Joseph T Rabban
{"title":"Diagnostic Utility of Deeper Level Tissue Sections of Negative Peritoneal Biopsies for Clinically Suspected Endometriosis.","authors":"Constance V Chen, Megan S Orlando, Mary Kathryn Abel, Jessica Opoku-Anane, Joseph T Rabban","doi":"10.1097/PGP.0000000000001071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Definitive diagnosis of endometriosis is established by histologic confirmation in tissue from surgically visualized lesions; however, the diagnostic sensitivity of this approach varies widely. We hypothesized that incomplete tissue block sampling may contribute to false-negative diagnosis, particularly if the focus of endometriosis in the tissue section is scant. This study defined the diagnostic value of deeper level tissue sections in cases in which none of the specimen parts contained endometriosis on the initial tissue sections, using the World Health Organization essential criteria for diagnosis of endometriosis (presence of endometrial glands and endometrial stroma). Among 135 patients who underwent surgery for suspected endometriosis by a single surgeon at an academic institution from 2015 to 2019, the initial tissue sections resulted in a diagnosis of endometriosis in 73.3% (99/135), at an average diagnostic yield of 5.9 slides per diagnosis of endometriosis. An additional 9 patients were diagnosed with endometriosis by deeper level tissue sections, increasing the diagnostic rate to 80% (108/135). This 6.7% gain in the diagnostic rate came at an increase in resource utilization, with an overall overage diagnostic yield of 9.8 slides per diagnosis of endometriosis. Overall, 8.3% of patients had a false-negative diagnosis on the initial tissue sections. When extrapolated to a population level, the number of patients potentially affected by this source of false-negative diagnosis and the implications for patients merit consideration of the use of deeper level sections if none of the initial sections of any of the specimens contains endometriosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":14001,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Pathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecological Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000001071","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Definitive diagnosis of endometriosis is established by histologic confirmation in tissue from surgically visualized lesions; however, the diagnostic sensitivity of this approach varies widely. We hypothesized that incomplete tissue block sampling may contribute to false-negative diagnosis, particularly if the focus of endometriosis in the tissue section is scant. This study defined the diagnostic value of deeper level tissue sections in cases in which none of the specimen parts contained endometriosis on the initial tissue sections, using the World Health Organization essential criteria for diagnosis of endometriosis (presence of endometrial glands and endometrial stroma). Among 135 patients who underwent surgery for suspected endometriosis by a single surgeon at an academic institution from 2015 to 2019, the initial tissue sections resulted in a diagnosis of endometriosis in 73.3% (99/135), at an average diagnostic yield of 5.9 slides per diagnosis of endometriosis. An additional 9 patients were diagnosed with endometriosis by deeper level tissue sections, increasing the diagnostic rate to 80% (108/135). This 6.7% gain in the diagnostic rate came at an increase in resource utilization, with an overall overage diagnostic yield of 9.8 slides per diagnosis of endometriosis. Overall, 8.3% of patients had a false-negative diagnosis on the initial tissue sections. When extrapolated to a population level, the number of patients potentially affected by this source of false-negative diagnosis and the implications for patients merit consideration of the use of deeper level sections if none of the initial sections of any of the specimens contains endometriosis.

阴性腹膜活检组织深层切片对临床疑似子宫内膜异位症的诊断作用
子宫内膜异位症的明确诊断需要通过手术观察到的病灶组织进行组织学确认;然而,这种方法的诊断灵敏度差别很大。我们推测,不完整的组织块取样可能会导致假阴性诊断,尤其是在组织切片中子宫内膜异位症病灶较少的情况下。本研究根据世界卫生组织诊断子宫内膜异位症的基本标准(存在子宫内膜腺体和子宫内膜基质),确定了在初始组织切片中标本部位均不包含子宫内膜异位症的情况下,深层组织切片的诊断价值。2015 年至 2019 年期间,一家学术机构的一名外科医生对 135 名疑似子宫内膜异位症患者进行了手术,其中 73.3% 的患者(99/135)通过初始组织切片确诊为子宫内膜异位症,平均每次诊断子宫内膜异位症的诊断率为 5.9 张切片。另有 9 名患者通过更深层次的组织切片确诊为子宫内膜异位症,诊断率提高到 80%(108/135)。在诊断率提高 6.7% 的同时,资源利用率也有所提高,每次诊断子宫内膜异位症的总体超额诊断率为 9.8 张切片。总体而言,8.3% 的患者在最初的组织切片诊断中出现了假阴性。如果推断到人群层面,这种假阴性诊断可能影响的患者人数以及对患者的影响值得考虑,如果任何标本的初始切片都不包含子宫内膜异位症,则应考虑使用更深层次的切片。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
154
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Gynecological Pathology is the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists (ISGyP), and provides complete and timely coverage of advances in the understanding and management of gynecological disease. Emphasis is placed on investigations in the field of anatomic pathology. Articles devoted to experimental or animal pathology clearly relevant to an understanding of human disease are published, as are pathological and clinicopathological studies and individual case reports that offer new insights.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信