Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia on curettage: how reliable is it?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the consistency of preoperative and postoperative histological findings in cases of endometrial hyperplasia.

Materials and methods

Fifty-five patients with endometrial hyperplasia detected by surgical curettage were treated by hysterectomy. The histopathological diagnoses found on curettage specimens were compared and correlated with those found on hysterectomy. Endometrial hyperplasia was classified according to the classification scheme of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

Results

Fifty-five patients were diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia on curettage specimens performed for evaluation of various bleeding abnormalities. The average age of the patients was 51.8 years (range 35–74). Thirty patients (55%) were postmenopausal. The interval between curettage and hysterectomy was 1–33 weeks. Of the patients, 26 (47%) had simple hyperplasia, 24 (44%) complex hyperplasia and 5 patients (9%) had complex atypical hyperplasia. Histopathological evaluation of hysterectomy specimens of these patients showed a total number of 35 cases (64%) with endometrial hyperplasia, 1 case of endometrial carcinoma and 19 cases with other pathological findings. The consistency rate between curettage and hysterectomy specimens was 45% (25/55 cases). Following hysterectomy, we found that none of the 26 simple hyperplasia cases and only one of the 24 complex hyperplasia cases coexisted with endometrial carcinoma. On the other hand, three of the five cases of complex atypical carcinoma coexisted with endometrial carcinoma.

Conclusions

Curettage endometrial pathology tends to be more consistent with final hysterectomy pathology in simple hyperplasia. However, in cases of complex hyperplasia with atypia, curettage seems to under diagnose the real pathology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sccully RE, Bonfiglio TA, Kurman RJ et al (1994) Histological typing of female genital tumors: international histological classification of tumors, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  2. Khong TY, Ismail SM (2005) Handbook of endometrial pathology. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 173–206, 207–260

    Google Scholar 

  3. Janicek MF, Rosenshein NB (1994) Invasive endometrial cancer in uteri resected for atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol 52:373–378. doi:10.1006/gyno.1994.1064

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Widra EA, Dunton CJ, McHugh M, Palazzo J (1995) Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 5:233–235. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1438.1995.05030233.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kurman RJ, Kaminski PF, Norris HJ (1985) The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia: a long-term study of untreated hyperplasia in 170 patients. Cancer 56:403–412. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19850715)56:2<403::AID-CNCR2820560233>3.0.CO;2-X

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Norris HJ, Connor MP, Kurman RJ (1986) Preinvasive lesions of the endometrium. Clin Obstet Gynecol 13:725–738

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Xie X, Lu WG, Ye DF, Chen HZ, Fu YF (2002) The value of curettage in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol 84:135–139. doi:10.1006/gyno.2001.6476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jesadapatrakul S, Tangjitamol S, Manusirivitaya S (2005) Histopathologic consistency between endometrial hyperplasia diagnosis from endometrial curettage and pathologic diagnoses from hysterectomy specimens. J Med Assoc Thai 88:S16–S20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gorlero F, Nicoletti L, Lijoi D, Ferrero S, Pullè A, Ragni N (2008) Endometrial directed biopsy during sonohysterography using the NiGo device: prospective study in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Fertil Steril 89(4):984–990. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.04.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Leone FP, Carsana L, Lanzani C, Vago G, Ferrazzi E (2007) Sonohysterographic endometrial sampling and hysteroscopic endometrial biopsy: a comparative study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29(4):443–448. doi:10.1002/uog.3981

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ivanov S, Katerinski K, Zervoudis S, Ivanov S (2004) Study of neovascularisation in endometrial cancer and hyperplasia using angio-Doppler technique. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) 43(2):41–43

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Szpurek D, Sajdak S, Moszyński R, Roszak A (2000) Estimation of neovascularisation in hyperplasia and carcinoma of endometrium using a “power” angio-Doppler technique. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 21(4):405–407

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Karamursel BS, Guven S, Tulunay G, Kucukali T, Ayhan A (2005) Which surgical procedure for patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia? Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:127–131. doi:10.1111/j.1048-891X.2005.15013.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tahir MM, Bigrigg MA, Browning JJ, Brookes ST, Smith PA (1999) A randomized controlled trial comparing transvaginal ultrasound, outpatient hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy with inpatient hysteroscopy and curettage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:1259–1264

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bergeron C, Nogales FF, Masseroli M, Abeler V, Duvillard P, Muller-Holzner E (1999) A multicentric European study testing the reproducibility of the WHO classification of endometrial hyperplasia with a proposal of a simplified working classification for biopsy and curettage specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 23:1102–1108. doi:10.1097/00000478-199909000-00014

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Merisio C, Berretta R, De Ioris A, Pultrone DC, Rolla M, Giordano G et al (2005) Endometrial cancer in patients with preoperative diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 122:107–111. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.01.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jordan University of Science and Technology, PO Box 2954, Irbid, 21110, Jordan

    Basil Obeidat

  2. Department of Pathology, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

    Alia Mohtaseb & Ismail Matalka

Authors
  1. Basil Obeidat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alia Mohtaseb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ismail Matalka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Basil Obeidat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Obeidat, B., Mohtaseb, A. & Matalka, I. The diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia on curettage: how reliable is it?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 279, 489–492 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0749-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0749-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation