Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 4, pp 813–820 | Cite as

Risk of endometrial cancer in asymptomatic postmenopausal patients with thickened endometrium: data from the FAME-Endo study: an observational register study

  • Lukas Hefler
  • Judith Lafleur
  • Sonja Kickmaier
  • Heinz Leipold
  • Carmen Siebenhofer
  • Barbara Tringler
  • Christian Schauer
  • Alexandra Ciresa-König
  • Alexander Reinthaller
Gynecologic Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the risk for endometrial cancer (EC) in a large series of asymptomatic patients with thickened endometrium at ultrasound examination based on previously published data of a theoretical cohort.

Methods

In a prospective register study, a total of 1024 women with thickened endometrium in ultrasound examination undergoing histological diagnosis by dilation, hysteroscopy and curettage were evaluated. 124 patients were excluded due to current medication with tamoxifen and/or presence of HNPCC leaving 900 patients for further analysis.

Results

Mean [standard deviation (SD)] age of patients was 65.6 (8.6) years. Mean (SD) endometrial thickness was 11.9 (5.8) mm. 32 and 6 cases of EC and complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia were found, respectively. In the univariate analysis, a statistically significant association between endometrial thickness, current use of antihypertensive medication, number of deliveries, and the presence of endometrial fluid in preoperative vaginal ultrasound (p < 0.05) with EC was found. A multivariate logistic regression model incorporating these parameters showed a statistically significant independent association of endometrial thickness, number of deliveries, and the presence of endometrial fluid in preoperative vaginal ultrasound (p < 0.05), but not current use of antihypertensive medication, with EC. Using a cut-off of the endometrial thickness of > 11 mm, the risk for “EC alone” and “EC and complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia combined” was found to be 6.7% and 7.9%, respectively.

Conclusions

Our data compare favorably to a theoretical cohort suggesting a clinically reasonable cut-off of > 11 mm endometrial thickness to discriminate between “normal” and “pathological”. The data regarding “risk for endometrial cancer” can be used for counseling affected women.

Keywords

Thickened endometrium Endometrial cancer Cut-off Screening Endometrial thickness Endometrial diameter 

Notes

Author contributions

LH: Protocol/project development, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. JL: Data collection or management, Protocol/project development, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. SK: Data collection or management. HL: Data collection or management. CS: Data collection or management. BT: Data collection or management. CS: Data collection or management, Manuscript editing. AC-K: Data collection or management. AR: Protocol/project development Data collection or management, Manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

Approval for this study was obtained by the respective Institutional Review Boards (EK 484/2009).

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Formal consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Institute. NC Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Program. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  2. 2.
    Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, Forman D, Bray F (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49(6):1374–1403.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moodley M, Roberts C (2004) Clinical pathway for the evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding with an emphasis on endometrial cancer detection. J Obstet Gynaecol 24(7):736–741.  https://doi.org/10.1080/014436104100009394 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yasa C, Dural O, Bastu E, Ugurlucan FG, Nehir A, Iyibozkurt AC (2016) Evaluation of the diagnostic role of transvaginal ultrasound measurements of endometrial thickness to detect endometrial malignancy in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294(2):311–316.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4054-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grimes DA (1982) Diagnostic dilation and curettage: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142(1):1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abdelazim IA, Abdelrazak KM, Elbiaa AA, Al-Kadi M, Yehia AH (2015) Accuracy of endometrial sampling compared to conventional dilatation and curettage in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291(5):1121–1126.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3523-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lipscomb GH, Lopatine SM, Stovall TG, Ling FW (1994) A randomized comparison of the Pipelle, Accurette, and Explora endometrial sampling devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170(2):591–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American College of O, Gynecologists (2009) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 440: the role of transvaginal ultrasonography in the evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding. Obst Gynecol 114(2 Pt 1):409–411.  https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e3181b48feb CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Timmermans A, Opmeer BC, Khan KS, Bachmann LM, Epstein E, Clark TJ, Gupta JK, Bakour SH, van den Bosch T, van Doorn HC, Cameron ST, Giusa MG, Dessole S, Dijkhuizen FP, Ter Riet G, Mol BW (2010) Endometrial thickness measurement for detecting endometrial cancer in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 116(1):160–167.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e3e7e8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Opolskiene G, Sladkevicius P, Valentin L (2011) Prediction of endometrial malignancy in women with postmenopausal bleeding and sonographic endometrial thickness ≥ 4.5 mm. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37(2):232–240.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.8871 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gull B, Carlsson S, Karlsson B, Ylostalo P, Milsom I, Granberg S (2000) Transvaginal ultrasonography of the endometrium in women with postmenopausal bleeding: is it always necessary to perform an endometrial biopsy? Am J Obstet Gynecol 182(3):509–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gull B, Karlsson B, Milsom I, Granberg S (2003) Can ultrasound replace dilation and curettage? A longitudinal evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding and transvaginal sonographic measurement of the endometrium as predictors of endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(2):401–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wong AS, Lao TT, Cheung CW, Yeung SW, Fan HL, Ng PS, Yuen PM, Sahota DS (2016) Reappraisal of endometrial thickness for the detection of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal bleeding: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 123(3):439–446.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fleischer AC, Wheeler JE, Lindsay I, Hendrix SL, Grabill S, Kravitz B, MacDonald B (2001) An assessment of the value of ultrasonographic screening for endometrial disease in postmenopausal women without symptoms. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(2):70–75.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.111088 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Worley MJ Jr, Dean KL, Lin SN, Caputo TA, Post RC (2011) The significance of a thickened endometrial echo in asymptomatic postmenopausal patients. Maturitas 68(2):179–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.10.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saatli B, Yildirim N, Olgan S, Koyuncuoglu M, Emekci O, Saygili U (2014) The role of endometrial thickness for detecting endometrial pathologies in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 54(1):36–40.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12174 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Famuyide AO, Breitkopf DM, Hopkins MR, Laughlin-Tommaso SK (2014) Asymptomatic thickened endometrium in postmenopausal women: malignancy risk. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(5):782–786.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Breijer MC, Peeters JA, Opmeer BC, Clark TJ, Verheijen RH, Mol BW, Timmermans A (2012) Capacity of endometrial thickness measurement to diagnose endometrial carcinoma in asymptomatic postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40(6):621–629.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12306 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laiyemo R, Dudill W, Jones SE, Browne H (2016) Do postmenopausal women with thickened endometrium on trans-vaginal ultrasound in the absence of vaginal bleeding need hysteroscopic assessment? A Pilot Study. J Obstet Gynaecol 36(2):223–226.  https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2015.1050649 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hartman A, Wolfman W, Nayot D, Hartman M (2013) Endometrial thickness in 1,500 asymptomatic postmenopausal women not on hormone replacement therapy. Gynecol Obstet Investig 75(3):191–195.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000347064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ates S, Sevket O, Sudolmus S, Ozel A, Molla T, Dane B, Dansuk R (2014) The value of transvaginal sonography in detecting endometrial pathologies in postmenopausal women with or without bleeding. Minerva Ginecol 66(4):335–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Louie M, Canavan TP, Mansuria S (2016) Threshold for endometrial sampling among postmenopausal patients without vaginal bleeding. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 132(3):314–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.07.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jokubkiene L, Sladkevicius P, Valentin L (2016) Transvaginal ultrasound examination of the endometrium in postmenopausal women without vaginal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48(3):390–396.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15841 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobs I, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Manchanda R, Singh N, Sharma A, Ryan A, Seif MW, Amso NN, Turner G, Brunell C, Fletcher G, Rangar R, Ford K, Godfrey K, Lopes A, Oram D, Herod J, Williamson K, Scott I, Jenkins H, Mould T, Woolas R, Murdoch J, Dobbs S, Leeson S, Cruickshank D, Skates SJ, Fallowfield L, Parmar M, Campbell S, Menon U (2011) Sensitivity of transvaginal ultrasound screening for endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women: a case-control study within the UKCTOCS cohort. Lancet Oncol 12(1):38–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70268-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gentry-Maharaj A, Sharma A, Burnell M, Ryan A, Amso NN, Seif MW, Turner G, Brunell C, Fletcher G, Rangar R, Fallowfield L, Campbell S, Jacobs I, Menon U (2013) Acceptance of transvaginal sonography by postmenopausal women participating in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41(1):73–79.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12262 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith-Bindman R, Weiss E, Feldstein V (2004) How thick is too thick? When endometrial thickness should prompt biopsy in postmenopausal women without vaginal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24(5):558–565.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.1704 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seckin B, Ozgu-Erdinc AS, Dogan M, Turker M, Cicek MN (2016) The utility of endometrial thickness measurement in asymptomatic postmenopausal women with endometrial fluid. J Obstet Gynaecol 36(2):230–233.  https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2015.1058768 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Takacs P, De Santis T, Nicholas MC, Verma U, Strassberg R, Duthely L (2005) Echogenic endometrial fluid collection in postmenopausal women is a significant risk factor for disease. J Ultrasound Med 24(11):1477–1481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Owings RA, Quick CM (2014) Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138(4):484–491.  https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0709-RA CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukas Hefler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Judith Lafleur
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sonja Kickmaier
    • 3
  • Heinz Leipold
    • 4
  • Carmen Siebenhofer
    • 5
  • Barbara Tringler
    • 6
  • Christian Schauer
    • 7
  • Alexandra Ciresa-König
    • 8
  • Alexander Reinthaller
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyGynecological Cancer Center, Ordensklinikum LinzLinzAustria
  2. 2.Karl Landsteiner Institute of Gynecolgical Surgery and OncologyLinzAustria
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyLandeskrankenhaus KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyLandeskrankenhaus OberpullendorfOberpullendorfAustria
  6. 6.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University of SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  7. 7.Department of GynecologyKonventhospital Barmherzige BruederGrazAustria
  8. 8.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations