Assessing the Reliability of Hysteroscopic Sampling Methods for Diagnosing Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Cancers Pub Date : 2025-09-17 DOI:10.3390/cancers17183036
Luca Giannella, Francesco Piva, Giovanni Delli Carpini, Jacopo Di Giuseppe, Matteo Giulietti, Erica Dugo, Francesco Sopracordevole, Anna Del Fabro, Nicolò Clemente, Barbara Gardella, Giorgio Bogani, Orsola Brasile, Ruby Martinello, Marta Caretto, Alessandro Ghelardi, Gianluca Albanesi, Guido Stevenazzi, Paolo Venturini, Maria Papiccio, Marco Cannì, Maggiorino Barbero, Massimiliano Fambrini, Veronica Maggi, Stefano Uccella, Arsenio Spinillo, Francesco Raspagliesi, Pantaleo Greco, Tommaso Simoncini, Felice Petraglia, Andrea Ciavattini
{"title":"Assessing the Reliability of Hysteroscopic Sampling Methods for Diagnosing Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia.","authors":"Luca Giannella, Francesco Piva, Giovanni Delli Carpini, Jacopo Di Giuseppe, Matteo Giulietti, Erica Dugo, Francesco Sopracordevole, Anna Del Fabro, Nicolò Clemente, Barbara Gardella, Giorgio Bogani, Orsola Brasile, Ruby Martinello, Marta Caretto, Alessandro Ghelardi, Gianluca Albanesi, Guido Stevenazzi, Paolo Venturini, Maria Papiccio, Marco Cannì, Maggiorino Barbero, Massimiliano Fambrini, Veronica Maggi, Stefano Uccella, Arsenio Spinillo, Francesco Raspagliesi, Pantaleo Greco, Tommaso Simoncini, Felice Petraglia, Andrea Ciavattini","doi":"10.3390/cancers17183036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: The diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) is associated with a high rate of concurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This occurrence can be particularly challenging in premenopausal women wishing to become pregnant, as they may be subjected to conservative treatment. The type of endometrial sampling may affect this outcome. Currently, the recommended type of endometrial sampling is under hysteroscopic guidance. There is scant literature regarding the reliability of hysteroscopically guided biopsy (HSC-bio) and hysteroscopic endometrial resection (HSC-res) on this topic. We aimed to assess the underestimation rate of EC in AEH, according to different hysteroscopic sampling methods. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the procedure performance in pre- and postmenopausal women. <b>Methods</b>: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective study that included 536 women diagnosed with AEH who underwent hysterectomy between 2015 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on the initial diagnostic approach for AEH: HSC-bio and HSC-res. The comparison was performed using univariate and multivariate analyses. <b>Results</b>: 160/536 women (29.9%) showed EC at hysterectomy. Overall, the following rate of EC underestimation was found: HSC-bio = 32.1%, HSC-res = 24.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.07. After adjusting for baseline characteristics using logistic regression analysis, overall, there was no significant association of EC underestimation according to the type of sampling procedure. Interestingly, in premenopausal women, including 161 cases, the rate of EC underestimation in HSC-bio and HSC-res was 28.8% vs. 14.0%, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.034). <b>Conclusions</b>: There were no significant differences in EC underestimation between the two hysteroscopic procedures in the entire cohort of women with AEH. Limited to the secondary objective, the significant findings in premenopausal women may be of particular clinical interest, as this population may undergo conservative treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":9681,"journal":{"name":"Cancers","volume":"17 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12468639/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17183036","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) is associated with a high rate of concurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This occurrence can be particularly challenging in premenopausal women wishing to become pregnant, as they may be subjected to conservative treatment. The type of endometrial sampling may affect this outcome. Currently, the recommended type of endometrial sampling is under hysteroscopic guidance. There is scant literature regarding the reliability of hysteroscopically guided biopsy (HSC-bio) and hysteroscopic endometrial resection (HSC-res) on this topic. We aimed to assess the underestimation rate of EC in AEH, according to different hysteroscopic sampling methods. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the procedure performance in pre- and postmenopausal women. Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective study that included 536 women diagnosed with AEH who underwent hysterectomy between 2015 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on the initial diagnostic approach for AEH: HSC-bio and HSC-res. The comparison was performed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: 160/536 women (29.9%) showed EC at hysterectomy. Overall, the following rate of EC underestimation was found: HSC-bio = 32.1%, HSC-res = 24.2%, p = 0.07. After adjusting for baseline characteristics using logistic regression analysis, overall, there was no significant association of EC underestimation according to the type of sampling procedure. Interestingly, in premenopausal women, including 161 cases, the rate of EC underestimation in HSC-bio and HSC-res was 28.8% vs. 14.0%, respectively (p = 0.034). Conclusions: There were no significant differences in EC underestimation between the two hysteroscopic procedures in the entire cohort of women with AEH. Limited to the secondary objective, the significant findings in premenopausal women may be of particular clinical interest, as this population may undergo conservative treatment.

Abstract Image

评估宫腔镜取样方法诊断不典型子宫内膜增生的可靠性。
背景/目的:不典型子宫内膜增生(AEH)的诊断与并发子宫内膜癌(EC)的高发率相关。这种情况在希望怀孕的绝经前妇女中尤其具有挑战性,因为她们可能会接受保守治疗。子宫内膜取样的类型可能会影响这一结果。目前,子宫内膜取样的推荐类型是宫腔镜指导下。关于宫腔镜引导活检(HSC-bio)和宫腔镜子宫内膜切除术(HSC-res)在这一主题上的可靠性,文献很少。我们的目的是根据不同的宫腔镜取样方法,评估AEH中EC的低估率。次要结果是评估绝经前和绝经后妇女的手术效果。方法:我们进行了一项多机构回顾性研究,纳入了2015年至2020年间接受子宫切除术的536名确诊为AEH的女性。根据AEH的初始诊断方法将患者分为两组:HSC-bio组和HSC-res组。采用单因素和多因素分析进行比较。结果:536例妇女中有160例(29.9%)在子宫切除术中出现EC。总体而言,EC低估率为:HSC-bio = 32.1%, HSC-res = 24.2%, p = 0.07。在使用逻辑回归分析调整基线特征后,总体而言,根据抽样程序的类型,EC低估没有显着关联。有趣的是,在包括161例的绝经前妇女中,HSC-bio和HSC-res的EC低估率分别为28.8%和14.0% (p = 0.034)。结论:在整个AEH女性队列中,两种宫腔镜手术对EC的低估没有显著差异。由于次要目的的限制,绝经前妇女的重大发现可能具有特殊的临床意义,因为这一人群可能接受保守治疗。
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
Cancers
Cancers Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
9.60%
发文量
5371
审稿时长
18.07 days
期刊介绍: Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal on oncology. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信