Advertisement

Methods of Endometrial Evaluation

  • Michael T. Mazur
  • Robert J. Kurman

Abstract

There are several methods of sampling the endometrium. The “gold standard” is dilatation and curettage (D&C), which requires dilatation of the cervix to allow insertion of a curette into the endometrial cavity.1–5 This technique allows for the most thorough sampling of the endometrium but requires anesthesia for cervical dilatation. The curette is drawn across the anterior and posterior endometrial surfaces, scraping the tissue free. D&C also readily allows for a fractional curettage, with sampling of both the endometrial and the endocervical mucosa. Fractional sampling is especially useful for evaluating possible endocervical pathology, such as extension of endometrial adenocarcinoma to the endocervix.6

Keywords

Obstet Gynecol Endometrial Carcinoma Ectopic Pregnancy Endometrial Biopsy Abnormal Uterine Bleeding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Grimes DA: Diagnostic dilation and curettage. A reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;142:1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith J, Schulman H: Current dilation and curettage. A need for revision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;65:516–518.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Droegemueller W: Diagnostic procedures. In: Comprehensive Gynecology. 2nd ed. Herbst AL, Mishell DR Jr, Stenchever MA, Droegemueller W, eds. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, 1992;213–251.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Swartz DP, Butler WJ: Normal and abnormal uterine bleeding. In: Te Linde’s Operative Gynecology. 7th ed. Thompson JD, Rock JA, eds. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1992;297–316.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friedman F, Brodman ML: Endometrial sampling techniques. In: The Uterus: Pathology, Diagnosis and Management. Altchek A, Deligdish L, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991; 155–162.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caron C, Tetu B, Laberge P, Bellemare G, Raymond P-E: Endocervical involvement by endometrial carcinoma on fractional curettage: A clinicopathological study of 37 cases. Mod Pathol 1991;4:644–647.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nickelsen C: Diagnostic and curative value of uterine curettage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1980;65:693–697.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schlaerth JB, Morrow CP, Rodriguez M: Diagnostic and therapeutic curettage in gestational trophoblastic disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162: 1465–1471.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daniel AG, Peters WA, III: Accuracy of office and operating room curettage in the grading of endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:612–614.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berkowitz RS, Desai U, Goldstein DP, Driscoll SG, Marean AR, et al: Pretreatment curettage—A predictor of chemotherapy response in gestational trophoblastic disease. Gynecol Oncol 1980;10:39–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cowles TA, MagrinaJF, Masterson BJ, Capen CV: Comparison of clinical and surgical staging in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:413–416.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stock RJ, Kanbour L: A pre-hysterectomy curettage. Obstet Gynecol 1975;45:537–560.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moller LMA, Berget A: Prehysterectomy curettage in women with uterine fibromyomata is not worthwhile. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993; 72:374–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soothill PW, Alcock CJ, MacKenzie IZ: Discrepancy between curettage and hysterectomy histology in patients with stage I uterine malignancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:478–481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Piver MS, Lele SB, Barlow JJ, Blumenson L: Paraaortic lymph node evaluation in stage I endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1982;59:97–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sant Cassia LJ, Weppelmann B, Shingleton, H, Soong SJ, Hatch K, et al: Management of early endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 35:362–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feldman S, Berkowitz RS, Tosteson ANA: Cost-effectiveness of strategies to evaluate postmenopausal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:968–975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koonings PP, Moyer DL, Grimes DA: A randomized clinical trial comparing Pipelle and Tis-u-trap for endometrial biopsy. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:293–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaunitz AM, Masciello A, Ostrowski M, Rovira EZ: Comparison of endometrial biopsy with the endometrial Pipelle and Vabra aspirator. J Reprod Med 1988;33:427–431.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hill GA, Herbert CM, III, Parker RA, Wentz AC: Comparison of late luteal phase endometrial biopsies using the Novak curette or Pipelle endometrial suction curette. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:443–446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eddowes HA, Read MD, Codling BW: Pipelle—A more acceptable technique for outpatient endometrial biopsy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97:961–962.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stovall TG, Photopulos GJ, Poston WM, Ling FW, Sandles LG: Pipelle endometrial sampling in patients with known endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:954–956.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Silver MM, Miles P, Rosa C: Comparison of Novak and Pipelle endometrial biopsy instruments. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:828–830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stovall TG, Ling FW, Morgan PL: A prospective, randomized comparison of the Pipelle endometrial sampling device with the Novak curette. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:1287–1290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fothergill DJ, Brown VA, Hill AS: Histological sampling of the endometrium—A comparison between formal curettage and the Pipelle sampler. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:779–780.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ferry J, Farnsworth A, Webster M, Wren B: The efficacy of the Pipelle endometrial biopsy in detecting endometrial carcinoma. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;33:76–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rodriguez GC, Yaqub N, King ME: A comparison of the Pipelle device and the Vabra aspirator as measured by endometrial denudation in hysterectomy specimens: The Pipelle device samples significantly less of the endometrial surface than the Vabra aspirator. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168:55–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Check JH, Chase TS, Nowroozi K, Wu CH, Chern R: Clinical evaluation of the Pipelle endometrial suction curette for timed endometrial biopsy. J Reprod Med 1989;34:218–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Henig I, Chan P, Treadway PR, Maw BM, Gullett AJ, et al: Evaluation of the Pipelle curette for endometrial biopsy. J Reprod Med 1989;34: 786–789.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Einerth Y: Vacuum curettage by the Vabra method. A simple procedure for endometrial diagnosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982;61: 373–376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stubblefield PM: Conception control: Contraception, sterilization, and pregnancy termination. In: Gynecology: Principles and Practice. 4th ed. Kist-ner RW, ed. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1986;583–621.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grimes DA: Surgical management of abortion. In: Te Linde’s Operative Gynecology. 7th ed. Thompson JD, Rock JA, eds. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1992;317–342.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Loffer FD: Hysteroscopy with selective endometrial sampling compared with D&C for abnormal uterine bleeding. The value of a negative hystero-scopicview. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73: 16–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Friedler S, Margalioth EJ, Kafka I, Yaffe H: Incidence of post-abortion intra-uterine adhesions evaluated by hysteroscopy. A prospective study. Hum Reprod 1993;8:442–444.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mencaglia L, Perino A, Hamou J: Hysteroscopy in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Reprod Med 1987 32:577–582.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fraser IS: Hysteroscopy and laparoscopy in women with menorrhagia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1264–1269.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wortman M, Daggett A: Hysteroscopic management of intractable uterine bleeding—A review of 103 cases. J Reprod Med 1993;38:505–510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hellen EA, Coghill SB, Shaxted EJ: The histo-pathology of transcervical resection of the endometrium—An analysis of 200 cases. Histopathology 1993;22:361–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Valle RF: Technique of panoramic hysteroscopy. In: Diagnostic and Operative Hysteroscopy: A Text and Atlas. Baggish MS, Barbot J, Valle RF, eds. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1989;94–101.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baggish MS: Contact hysteroscopy. In: Diagnostic and Operative Hysteroscopy: A Text and Atlas. Baggish MS, Barbot J, Valle RF, eds. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1989; 102–113.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Daniell JF, Kurtz BR, Ke RW: Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation using the rollerball electrode. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:329–332.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 2.
    Rogers PAW, Poison D, Murphy CR, Hosie M, Susil B, et al: Correlation of endometrial histology, morphometry, and ultrasound appearance after different stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1991;55:583–587.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fleischer AC, Gordon AN, Entman SS, Kepple DM: Transvaginal scanning of the endometrium. J Clin Ultrasound 1990;18:337–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nasri MN, Coast GJ: Correlation of ultrasound findings and endometrial histopathology in postmenopausal women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96:1333–1338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Khalifa E, Brzyski RG, Oehninger S, Acosta AA, Muasher SJ: Sonographic appearance of the endometrium—The predictive value for the outcome of in vitro fertilization in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 1992;7:677–680.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dorum A, Kristensen GB, Langebrekke A, Sornes T, Skaar O: Evaluation of endometrial thickness measured by endovaginal ultrasound in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993;72:116–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dickey RP, Olar TT, Curole DN, Taylor SN, Rye PH: Endometrial pattern and thickness associated with pregnancy outcome after assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod 1992; 7:418–421.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sheth S, Hamper UM, Kurman RJ: Thickened endometrium in the postmenopausal woman—sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993;87:135–139.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dickey RP, Olar TT, Taylor SN, Curole DN, Ma-tulich EM: Relationship of endometrial thickness and pattern to fecundity in ovulation induction cycles—Effect of clomiphene citrate alone and with human menopausal gonadotropin. Fertil Steril 1993;59:756–760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Doherty CM, Silver B, Binor Z, Molo MW, Radwanska E: Transvaginal ultrasound and the assessment of luteal phase endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:1702–1709.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Smith P, Bakos O, Heimer G, Ulmsten U: Transvaginal ultrasound for identifying endometrial abnormality. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991;70: 591–594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fleischer AC, Gordon AN, Entman SS, Keple DM: Transvaginal sonography of the endometrium: Current and potential clinical applications. In: The Principles and Practice of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 4th ed. Fleischer AC, Romero R, Manning FA, Jeanty P, James AE, Jr, eds. Norwalk: Appleton and Lange, 1991;583–596.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Varner RE, Sparks JM, Cameron CD, Roberts LL, Soong S: Transvaginal sonography of the endometrium in postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:195–199.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Goldchmit R, Katz Z, Blickstein I, Caspi B, Dgani R: The accuracy of endometrial Pipelle sampling with and without sonographic measurement of endometrial thickness. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82: 727–730.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Grunfeld L, Walker B, Bergh PA, Sandler B, Hoffmann G, et al: High-resolution endovaginal ultrasonography of the endometrium: A noninvasive test for endometrial adequacy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:200–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fleischer AC, Cartwright PS, Pennell RG, Sacks GA: Sonography of ectopic pregnancy with transabdominal and transvaginal scanning. In: The Principles and Practice of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 4th ed. Fleischer AC, Romero R, Manning FA, Jeanty P, James AE, Jr, eds. Norwalk: Appleton and Lange, 1991;57–76.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fleischer AC, Gordon AN: Sonography of trophoblastic diseases. In: The Principles and Practice of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 4th ed. Fleischer AC, Romero R, Manning FA, Jeanty P, James AE, Jr, eds. Norwalk: Appleton and Lange, 1991;501–508.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Romero R, Horgan JG, Kohorn EI, Kadar N, Taylor KJW, et al: New criteria for the diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:553–558.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Berkowitz RS, Birnholz J, Goldstein DP, Bernstein MR: Pelvic ultrasonography and the management of gestational trophoblastic disease. Gynecol Oncol 1983;15:403–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lange RC, Buberg AC, McCarthy SM: An evaluation of MRI contrast in the uterus using synthetic imaging. Magn Reson Med 1991 ;17: 27–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brown HK, Stoll BS, Nicosia SV, Florica JV, Hambley PS, et al: Uterine junctional zone: Correlation between histologic findings and MR imaging. Radiology 1991;179:409–413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Scoutt LM, Flynn SD, Luthringer DJ, McCauley TR, McCarthy SM: Junctional zone of the uterus: Correlation of MR imaging and histologic examination of hysterectomy specimens. Radiology 1991;179:403–407.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Brown JJ, Thurnher S, Hricak H: MR imaging of the uterus: Low-signal-intensity abnormalities of the endometrium and endometrial cavity. Magn Reson Imaging 1990;8:309–313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Barton JW, McCarthy SM, Kohorn EI, Scoutt LM, Lange RC: Pelvic MR imaging findings in gestational trophoblastic disease, incomplete abortion, and ectopic pregnancy: Are they specific? Radiology 1993;186:163–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Buckley CH, Fox H: Biopsy Pathology of the Endometrium. New York: Raven Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kepes JJ, Oswald O: Tissue artefacts caused by sponge in embedding cassettes. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:810–812.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Carson SA, Buster JE: Ectopic pregnancy. N Engl JMed 1993;329:1174–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Azumi N, Czernobilsky B: Immunohistochemistry. In: Blaustein’s Pathology of the Female Genital Tract. 4th ed. Kurman RJ, ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994; 1131–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Felix JC, Sherrod AE, Taylor GR: Gynecologic and testicular neoplasms. In: Immunomicros-copy: A Diagnostic Tool for the Surgical Pathologist. 2nd ed. Taylor CR, Cote RJ, eds. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Go., 1994;236–255.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    O’Connor DM, Kurman RJ: Intermediate tro-phoblast in uterine curettings in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72: 665–670.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kaspar HG, To T, Dinh TV: Clinical use of im-munoperoxidase markers in excluding ectopic gestation. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:433–437.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Daya D, Sabet L: The use of cytokeratin as a sensitive and reliable marker for trophoblastic tissue. Am J Clin Pathol 1991;95:137–141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yeh IT, O’Connor DM, Durman RJ: Intermediate trophoblast: Further immunocytochemical characterization. Mod Pathol 1990;3:282–287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sorensen FB, Marcussen N, Daugaard HO, Kristiansen JD, Moller J, et al: Immunohistological demonstration of intermediate trophoblast in the diagnosis of uterine versus ectopic pregnancy—A retrospective survey and results of a prospective trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98:463–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kurman RJ, Main CS, Chen HC: Intermediate trophoblast: A distinctive form of trophoblast with specific morphological, biochemical and functional features. Placenta 1984;5:349–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Angel E, Davis JR, Nagle RB: Immunohistochemical demonstration of placental hormones in the diagnosis of uterine versus ectopic pregnancy. Am J Clin Pathol 1985;84:705–709.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kurman RJ, Young RH, Norris HJ, Main CS, Lawrence WD, et al: Immunocytochemical localization of placental lactogen and chorionic gonadotropin in the normal placenta and trophoblastic tumors, with emphasis on intermediate trophoblast and the placental site trophoblastic tumor. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1984;3:101–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Young RE, Kurman RJ, Scully RE: Proliferations and tumors of intermediate trophoblast of the placental site. Semin Diagn Pathol 1988; 5:223–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Brescia RJ, Kurman RJ, Main CS, Surti U, Szulman AE: Immunocytochemical localization of chorionic gonadotropin, placental lactogen, and placental alkaline phosphatase in the diagnosis of complete and partial hydatidiform moles. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1987;6:213–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Nakamura Y, Moritsuka Y, Ohta Y, Itoh S, Haratake A, et al: S-100 protein in glands within decidua and cervical glands during early pregnancy. Hum Pathol 1989;20:1204–1209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Agarwal S, Singh UR: Immunoreactivity with S100 protein as an indicator of pregnancy. Indian J Med Res 1992;96:24–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Dabbs DJ, Geisinger KR, Norris HT: Intermediate filaments in endometrial and endocervical carcinomas. The diagnostic utility of vimentin patterns. AmJ Surg Pathol 1986;10:568–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tamimi HK, Gown AM, Kimdeobald J, Figge DC, Greer BE, et al: The utility of immunocytochemistry in invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166:1655–1662.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Cohen C, Shulman G, Budgeon LR: Endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: An immuno-peroxidase and histochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 1982;6:151–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Maes G, Fleuren GJ, Bara J, Nap M: The distribution of mucins, carcinoembryonic antigen, and mucus-associated antigens in endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1988;7:112–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Debrito PA, Silverberg SG, Orenstein JM: Carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed mullerian (mesodermal) tumor) of the female genital tract—Immuno-histochemical and ultrastructural analysis of 28 cases. Hum Pathol 1993;24:132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    George E, Manivel JC, Dehner LP, Wick MR: Malignant mixed mullerian tumors: An immuno-histochemical study of 47 cases, with histogenetic considerations and clinical correlation. Hum Pathol 1991;22:215–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Geisinger KR, Dabbs DJ, Marshall RB: Malignant mixed mullerian tumors. An ultrastructural and immunohistochemical analysis with histogenetic considerations. Cancer 1987;59:1781–1790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Auerbach HE, Livolsi VA, Merino MJ: Malignant mixed mullerian tumors of the uterus. An immunohistochemical study. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1988;7:123–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Meis JM, Lawrence WD: The immunohistochemical profile of malignant mixed mullerian tumor. Overlap with endometrial adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 1990;94:1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Costa MJ, Khan R, Judd R: Carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed mullerian [mesodermal] tumor) of the uterus and ovary. Correlation of clinical, pathologic, and immunohistochemical features in 29 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1991 ;115:583–590.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Bitterman P, Chun B, Kurman RJ: The significance of epithelial differentiation in mixed mesodermal tumors of the uterus. A clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 1990;14:317–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Far hood AI, Abrams J: Immunohistochemistry of endometrial stromal sarcoma. Hum Pathol 1991;22:224–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Franquemont DW, Frierson HF, Mills SE: An immunohistochemical study of normal endometrial stroma and endometrial stromal neoplasms —Evidence for smooth muscle differentiation. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:861–870.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Lillemoe TJ, Perrone T, Norris HJ, Dehner LP: Myogenous phenotype of epithelial-like areas in endometrial stromal sarcomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1991;115:215–219.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Barr NJ, Taylor CR: Approach to the “unknown primary”—Anaplastic tumors. In: Immuno-microscopy: A Diagnostic Tool for the Surgical Pathologist. 2nd ed. Taylor GR, Cote RJ, eds. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1994; 368–400.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Taylor CR: Lymphoma/hematopathology: The antibodies. In: Immunomicroscopy: A diagnostic Tool for the Surgical Pathologist. 2nd ed. Taylor CR, Cote RJ, eds. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1994;71–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael T. Mazur
    • 1
  • Robert J. Kurman
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Crouse Irving Memorial Hospital, Health Science CenterState University of New YorkSyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Gynecology and Obstetrics and PathologyThe Johns Hopkins HospitalBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.The Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations