PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 18, 2025Cancers0 citationsOpen Access

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

View Full Paper
LGLuca GiannellaFPFrancesco PivaGCGiovanni Delli Carpini

Key Points

  • No significant differences in endometrial cancer underestimation between hysteroscopic procedures were found overall.
  • In premenopausal women, the rate of cancer underestimation was significantly lower in hysteroscopic endometrial resection than hysteroscopic biopsy.
  • Analysis included 536 women diagnosed with atypical endometrial hyperplasia who underwent hysterectomy from 2015 to 2020.
  • The findings suggest that sampling methods may have different implications particularly for women undergoing conservative treatment.

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.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Giannella et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d461cb31b076d99fa612c4https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17183036
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper