Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is an endometrial thickness of ≥4 mm on transvaginal ultrasound scan an appropriate threshold for investigation of postmenopausal bleeding?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gynecological Surgery

Abstract

Uterine cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the UK. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) provides a reliable means of determining endometrial thickness. There is little consensus as to the optimum endometrial thickness threshold for investigation of endometrial cancer. The aim of our study was to ascertain an appropriate endometrial thickness (ET) while limiting unnecessary investigation. A prospective study of women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) referred to the rapid access clinic over a 2-year period was undertaken. The primary investigation was TVS and if the ET was ≥4 mm, an endometrial sampling (Pipelle®) or a hysteroscopy was undertaken. Endometrial cancers were identified from the pathology reporting system and a search of the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry Information Service (NYCRIS). Pre-test/post-test risks of endometrial cancer and numbers needed to test were calculated to determine optimum ET threshold. There were 1045 referrals to the rapid access clinic with a history of PMB. Pre-test risk of endometrial cancer was 6.5 %. Post-test risk was stratified according to ET measurement. The probability of an endometrial cancer at an ET < 4 mm was 0.3 %. Binary logistic regression analysis confirmed a statistically significant linear correlation between ET and the risk of developing endometrial cancer (p < 0.0001). The numbers needed to test in order to diagnose one case of endometrial cancer at 3 mm is 11 when compared with 4 at 10 mm. The authors conclude a threshold of ET ≥ 4 mm ensures the majority of cancers are detected with minimal unnecessary invasive investigation.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. www.cancerreseachuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/keyfacts/uterine- cancer-key-facts/

  2. Colombo N, Preti E, Landoni F, Carinelli S, Colombo A, Marini C, Sessa C (2011) Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow up. Annal Oncol 22(suppl 6):vi35–vi39. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr354

    Google Scholar 

  3. Watson P, Vasen HFA, Mecklin JP, Jarvinen H, Lynch HT (1994) The risk of endometrial cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Am J Med 96(6):516–520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mateos F, Zarauz R, Seco C, Rayward JR, Del Barrio P, Aquirre J, Bajo JM (1997) Assessment with transvaginal ultrasonography of endometrial thickness in women with postmenopausal bleeding. European J Gynecol Oncol 18(6):504–507

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dimitraki M, Tsikluras P, Bouchlariotou S, Dafopoulos A, Liberis V, Maroulis G, Teichmann A (2011) Clinical evaluation of women with PMB. Is it always necessary for an endometrial biopsy to be performed? A review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283(2):261–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams SC, Lopez C, Yoong A, McHugo JM (2007) Developing a robust and efficient pathway for the referral and investigation of women with post-menopausal bleeding using a cut off of 4mm for normal thickness. British J Radiol 80(957):719–723

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Timmermans A, Opmeer BC, Khan K, Bachmann LM, et al. (2010) Endometrial thickness measurement for detecting endometrial cancer in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetrics Gynaecol 116(1):160–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K, Feldstein VA, Subak L, Scheidler J, Segal M, et al. (1998) Endovaginal ultrasound to exclude endometrial cancer and other endometrial abnormalities. J Am Med Assoc 280:1510–1517

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chien PFW, Voit D, Clark TJ, Khan KS, JK G (2002) Ultrasonographic endometrial thickness for diagnosing endometrial pathology in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81(9):799–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Granberg S, Wikland M, Karlsson B, Norstrom A, Friberg LG (1991) Endometrial thickness as measured by endovaginal ultrasonography for identifying endometrial abnormality. Am J Obstetrics Gynaecol 164(1):47–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Munro M (2014) Investigation of women with postmenopausal uterine bleeding: clinical practice recommendations. Permanente J 18(1):55–70. doi:10.7812/TPP/13-072

    Google Scholar 

  12. Guido RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Rulin MC, Christopherson WA (1995) Pipelle endometrial sampling. Sensitivity in detection of endometrial cancer. J Reproductive Med 40(8):553–555

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Goldchmit R, Katz ZVI, Blickstein I, Caspi B, Dgani R (1993) The accuracy of endometrial Pipelle sampling with and without sonographic measurement of endometrial thickness. Obstet Gynaecol 82(5):727–730

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Clark TJ, Mann CH, Shah N, Khan KS, Song F, Gupta JK (2002) Accuracy of outpatient endometrial biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer: a systematic quantitative review. BJOG 109:313–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Farrell T, Jones N, Owen P, Baird A (1999) The significance of an ‘insufficient’ Pipelle sample in the investigation of postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand 78(9):810–812

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. van Doorn HC, Opmeer BC, Burger CW, Duk MJ, Kooi GS, Mol BW (2007) Inadequate office endometrial sample requires further evaluation in women with postmenopausal bleeding and abnormal ultrasound results. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 99(2):100–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contributions

Michelle Russell performed data analysis and manuscript writing. Meenakshi Choudhary performed data collection and analysis and manuscript editing. Mark Roberts contributed to project development, data collection and analysis and manuscript editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospitals Trust, Tyne and wear, UK

    M. Russell, M. Choudhary & M. Roberts

Authors
  1. M. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Choudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Russell.

Ethics declarations

Appropriate ethical approval was obtained from the local ethics committee. Informed consent was obtained for all patients included in this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Russell, M., Choudhary, M. & Roberts, M. Is an endometrial thickness of ≥4 mm on transvaginal ultrasound scan an appropriate threshold for investigation of postmenopausal bleeding?. Gynecol Surg 13, 193–197 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0931-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0931-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation