Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods of Endometrial Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Diagnosis of Endometrial Biopsies and Curettings

  • 1402 Accesses

Abstract

The clinical decision to perform endometrial sampling is dependent on medical history, physical examination, laboratory data, imaging studies, and patient age. Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) may be secondary to structural lesions including polyps, adenomyosis, leiomyoma, or malignancy and hyperplasia or nonstructural lesions including coagulopathies, ovulatory dysfunction, endometrial, iatrogenic, or not yet specified, which together comprise the acronym PALM-COEIN (see Chap. 1 for AUB classification). A transvaginal ultrasound is often performed first to determine the presence of a structural lesion. However, the first-line method of evaluation (imaging versus tissue sampling) depends on the clinical suspicion for the diagnoses listed above.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Broomfield D, Armstrong A, Carnovale D, Butler W. Normal and abnormal uterine bleeding. In: Jones III HW, Rock JA, editors. Te Linde’s Operative Gynecology. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015. p. 554–76.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altchek A, Deligdish L, Friedman F, Brodman M. Endometrial sampling techniques. The uterus: pathology, diagnosis and management. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1991. p. 155–62.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Feldman S, Berkowitz RS, Tosteson AN. Cost-effectiveness of strategies to evaluate postmenopausal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:968–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Spencer CP, Whitehead MI. Endometrial assessment re-visited. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:623–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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;33:76–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stovall TG, Photopulos GJ, Poston WM, Ling FW, Sandles LG. Pipelle endometrial sampling in patients with known endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77:954–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Koonings PP, Moyer DL, Grimes DA. A randomized clinical trial comparing Pipelle and Tis-u-trap for endometrial biopsy. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75:293–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaunitz AM, Masciello A, Ostrowski M, Rovira EZ. Comparison of endometrial biopsy with the endometrial Pipelle and Vabra aspirator. J Reprod Med. 1988;33:427–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hill GA, Herbert CM, Parker RA, Wentz AC. Comparison of late luteal phase endometrial biopsies using the Novak curette or Pipelle endometrial suction curette. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73:443–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eddowes HA, Read MD, Codling BW. Pipelle: a more acceptable technique for outpatient endometrial biopsy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97:961–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Silver MM, Miles P, Rosa C. Comparison of Novak and Pipelle endometrial biopsy instruments. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:828–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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;165:1287–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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;99:779–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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;168:55–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Check JH, Chase JS, Nowroozi K, Wu CH, Chern R. Clinical evaluation of the Pipelle endometrial suction curette for timed endometrial biopsies. J Reprod Med. 1989;34:218–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Henig I, Chan P, Tredway DR, Maw GM, Gullett AJ, Cheatwood M. Evaluation of the Pipelle curette for endometrial biopsy. J Reprod Med. 1989;34:786–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Visser NCM, Reijnen C, Massuger LFAG, Nagtegaal ID, Bulten J, Pijnenborg JMA. Accuracy of endometrial sampling in endometrial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:803–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dijkhuizen FP, Mol BW, Brölmann HA, Heintz AP. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. Cancer. 2000;89:1765–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Guido RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Rulin MC, Christopherson WA. Pipelle endometrial sampling. Sensitivity in the detection of endometrial cancer. J Reprod Med. 1995;40:553–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barnhart KT, Gracia CR, Reindl B, Wheeler JE. Usefulness of Pipelle endometrial biopsy in the diagnosis of women at risk for ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:906–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ong S, Duffy T, Lenehan P, Murphy J. Endometrial Pipelle biopsy compared to conventional dilatation and curettage. Ir J Med Sci. 1997;166:47–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ries A, Singson P, Bidus M, Barnes JG. Use of the endometrial Pipelle in the diagnosis of early abnormal gestations. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:593–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Seto MTY, Ip PPC, Ngu S-F, Cheung ANY, Pun T-C. Positive predictive value of endometrial polyps in Pipelle aspiration sampling: a histopathological study of 195 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;203:12–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Larson DM, Johnson KK, Broste SK, Krawisz BR, Kresl JJ. Comparison of D&C and office endometrial biopsy in predicting final histopathologic grade in endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86:38–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Agostini A, Shojaï R, Cravello L, Rojat-Habib MC, Roger V, Bretelle F, Blanc B. Endometrial biopsy during outpatient hysteroscopy: evaluation and comparison of two devices. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;97:220–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang GS, Gebb JS, Einstein MH, Shahabi S, Novetsky AP, Goldberg GL. Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling for the detection of high-grade endometrial tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:243.e1-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Critchley HOD, Warner P, Lee AJ, Brechin S, Guise J, Graham B. Evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding: comparison of three outpatient procedures within cohorts defined by age and menopausal status. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–139.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Carlson SM, Goldberg J, Lentz DM. Endoscopy: hysteroscopy and laparoscopy. In: Lobo RA, Gershenson DM, Lentz GM, Valea FA, editors. Comprehensive gynecology. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2017. p. 190–204.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Grimes DA. Diagnostic dilation and curettage: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;142:1–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Smith JJ, Schulman H. Current dilatation and curettage practice: a need for revision. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65:516–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. van Hanegem N, Prins MMC, Bongers MY, Opmeer BC, Sahota DS, Mol BWJ, Timmermans A. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;197:147–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nickelsen C. Diagnostic and curative value of uterine curettage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65:693–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schlaerth JB, Morrow CP, Rodriguez M. Diagnostic and therapeutic curettage in gestational trophoblastic disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;162:1465–70. discussion 1470–1471

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Daniel AG, Peters WA. Accuracy of office and operating room curettage in the grading of endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71:612–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Berkowitz RS, Desai U, Goldstein DP, Driscoll SG, Marean AR, Bernstein MR. Pretreatment curettage-A predictor of chemotherapy response in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 1980;10:39–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cowles TA, Magrina JF, Masterson BJ, Capen CV. Comparison of clinical and surgical-staging in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;66:413–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bettocchi S, Ceci O, Vicino M, Marello F, Impedovo L, Selvaggi L. Diagnostic inadequacy of dilatation and curettage. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:803–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Stock RJ, Kanbour A. Prehysterectomy curettage. Obstet Gynecol. 1975;45:537–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Epstein E, Ramirez A, Skoog L, Valentin L. Dilatation and curettage fails to detect most focal lesions in the uterine cavity in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80:1131–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Soothill PW, Alcock CJ, MacKenzie IZ. Discrepancy between curettage and hysterectomy histology in patients with stage 1 uterine malignancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96:478–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Piver MS, Lele SB, Barlow JJ, Blumenson L. Paraaortic lymph node evaluation in stage I endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 1982;59:97–100.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sant Cassia LJ, Weppelmann B, Shingleton H, Soong SJ, Hatch K, Salter MM. Management of early endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;35:362–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Obermair A, Geramou M, Gücer F, Denison U, Graf AH, Kapshammer E, Medl M, Rosen A, Wierrani F, Neunteufel W, Frech I, Speiser P, Kainz C, Breitenecker G. Endometrial cancer: accuracy of the finding of a well differentiated tumor at dilatation and curettage compared to the findings at subsequent hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1999;9:383–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Møller LM, Berget A. Prehysterectomy curettage in women with uterine fibromyomata is not worthwhile. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1993;72:374–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hinchcliff EM, Esselen KM, Watkins JC, Oduyebo T, Rauh-Hain JA, Del Carmen MG, Quade BJ, Muto MG. The role of endometrial biopsy in the preoperative detection of uterine leiomyosarcoma. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:567–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bansal N, Herzog TJ, Burke W, Cohen CJ, Wright JD. The utility of preoperative endometrial sampling for the detection of uterine sarcomas. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110:43–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Duplantier N, Finan MA, Barbe T. Necessity of endometrial biopsy in women with enlarged uteri and a preoperative diagnosis of uterine leiomyomata. J Reprod Med. 2003;48:23–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Clark TJ, Voit D, Gupta JK, Hyde C, Song F, Khan KS. Accuracy of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and hyperplasia: a systematic quantitative review. JAMA. 2002;288:1610–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Gkrozou F, Dimakopoulos G, Vrekoussis T, Lavasidis L, Koutlas A, Navrozoglou I, Stefos T, Paschopoulos M. Hysteroscopy in women with abnormal uterine bleeding: a meta-analysis on four major endometrial pathologies. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291:1347–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Svirsky R, Smorgick N, Rozowski U, Sagiv R, Feingold M, Halperin R, Pansky M. Can we rely on blind endometrial biopsy for detection of focal intrauterine pathology? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:115.e1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Spadoto-Dias D, Bueloni-Dias FN, Elias LV, Leite NJ, Modotti WP, Lasmar RB, Dias R. The value of hysteroscopic biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial polyps. Womens Health (Lond). 2016;12:412–9.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Daniell JF, Kurtz BR, Ke RW. Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation using the rollerball electrode. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80:329–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Munro MG. Endometrial ablation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;46:120–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Grimbizis GF, Tsolakidis D, Mikos T, Anagnostou E, Asimakopoulos E, Stamatopoulos P, Tarlatzis BC. A prospective comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, saline infusion sonohysterography, and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of endometrial pathology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2720–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Isaacson K. Office hysteroscopy: a valuable but under-utilized technique. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;14:381–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Salazar CA, Isaacson K. Office operative hysteroscopy: an update. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;25:199–208.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Elyashiv O, Sagiv R, Kerner R, Keidar R, Menczer J, Levy T. Hysteroscopic resection of premalignant and malignant endometrial polyps: is it a safe alternative to hysterectomy? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24:1200–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. van Hanegem N, Breijer MC, Slockers SA, Zafarmand MH, Geomini P, Catshoek R, Pijnenborg J, van der Voet LF, Dijkhuizen F, van Hoecke G, Reesink-Peters N, Veersema S, van Hooff M, van Kesteren P, Huirne JA, Opmeer BC, Bongers MY, Mol B, Timmermans A. Diagnostic workup for postmenopausal bleeding: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2017;124:231–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Einerth Y. Vacuum curettage by the Vabra method. A simple procedure for endometrial diagnosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61:373–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Wu HH-J, Casto BD, Elsheikh TM. Endometrial brush biopsy. An accurate outpatient method of detecting endometrial malignancy. J Reprod Med. 2003;48:41–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Del Priore G, Williams R, Harbatkin CB, Wan LS, Mittal K, Yang GC. Endometrial brush biopsy for the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. J Reprod Med. 2001;46:439–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rogers PA, Polson D, Murphy CR, Hosie M, Susil B, Leoni M. Correlation of endometrial histology, morphometry, and ultrasound appearance after different stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:583–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Fleischer AC, Gordon AN, Entman SS, Kepple DM. Transvaginal scanning of the endometrium. J Clin Ultrasound. 1990;18:337–49.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 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;7:677–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 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;7:418–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sheth S, Hamper UM, Kurman RJ. Thickened endometrium in the postmenopausal woman: sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1993;187:135–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Dørum A, Kristensen GB, Langebrekke A, Sørnes T, Skaar O. Evaluation of endometrial thickness measured by endovaginal ultrasound in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1993;72:116–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Doherty CM, Silver B, Binor Z, Molo MW, Radwanska E. Transvaginal ultrasonography and the assessment of luteal phase endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:1702–7. discussion 1707–1709

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Iha T, Shen H, Kanazawa K. Hysteroscopy to detect stage IA well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82:378–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Giorda G, Crivellari D, Veronesi A, Perin T, Campagnutta E, Carbone A, Scarabelli C. Comparison of ultrasonography, hysteroscopy, and biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial lesions in postmenopausal tamoxifen-treated patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81:975–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Panda JK. One-stop clinic for postmenopausal bleeding. J Reprod Med. 2002;47:761–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Gull B, Karlsson B, Milsom I, Granberg S. 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. 2003;188:401–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Davidson KG, Dubinsky TJ. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the endometrium in postmenopausal vaginal bleeding. Radiol Clin N Am. 2003;41:769–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Giusa-Chiferi MG, Gonçalves WJ, Baracat EC, de Albuquerque Neto LC, Bortoletto CC, de Lima GR. Transvaginal ultrasound, uterine biopsy and hysteroscopy for postmenopausal bleeding. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1996;55:39–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Langer RD, Pierce JJ, O’Hanlan KA, Johnson SR, Espeland MA, Trabal JF, Barnabei VM, Merino MJ, Scully RE. Transvaginal ultrasonography compared with endometrial biopsy for the detection of endometrial disease. Postmenopausal estrogen/progestin interventions trial. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1792–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Smith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K, Feldstein VA, Subak L, Scheidler J, Segal M, Brand R, Grady D. Endovaginal ultrasound to exclude endometrial cancer and other endometrial abnormalities. JAMA. 1998;280:1510–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Weber AM, Belinson JL, Bradley LD, Piedmonte MR. Vaginal ultrasonography versus endometrial biopsy in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:924–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Fleischer AC, Abramowicz J, Goncalves L, Manning FA, Monteagudo A, Toy E, Tritsch I. Transvaginal sonography of endometrial disorders. In: Sonography in obstetrics & gynecology: principles and practice. 8th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Professional; 2017. p. 995–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Patel V, Wilkinson EJ, Chamala S, Lu X, Castagno J, Rush D. Endometrial thickness as measured by transvaginal ultrasound and the corresponding histopathologic diagnosis in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2017;36:348–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 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;82:727–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 734: the role of transvaginal ultrasonography in evaluating the endometrium of women with postmenopausal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e124–9.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Laiyemo R, Dudill W, Jones SE, Browne H. 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. 2016;36:223–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Epstein E, Fischerova D, Valentin L, Testa AC, Franchi D, Sladkevicius P, Frühauf F, Lindqvist PG, Mascilini F, Fruscio R, Haak LA, Opolskiene G, Pascual MA, Alcazar JL, Chiappa V, Guerriero S, Carlson J, Van Holsbeke C, FPG L, De Moor B, Bourne T, van Calster B, Installe A, Timmerman D, Verbakel JY, Van den Bosch T. Ultrasound characteristics of endometrial cancer as defined by the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) consensus nomenclature - A prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(6):818–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Nieuwenhuis LL, Hermans FJ, de Vaate AJM B, Leeflang MM, Brölmann HA, Hehenkamp WJ, BWJ M, Clark TJ, Huirne JA. Three-dimensional saline infusion sonography compared to two-dimensional saline infusion sonography for the diagnosis of focal intracavitary lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;5:CD011126.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Bittencourt CA, Dos Santos SR, Bernardo WM, Fuchs LFP, Soares Júnior JM, Pastore AR, Baracat EC. Accuracy of saline contrast sonohysterography in detection of endometrial polyps and submucosal leiomyomas in women of reproductive age with abnormal uterine bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:32–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Laberge PY, Abbott J. Imaging for polyps and leiomyomas in women with abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:1425–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Phillips CH, Wortman JR, Ginsburg ES, Sodickson AD, Doubilet PM, Khurana B. First-trimester emergencies: a radiologist’s perspective. Emerg Radiol. 2018;25:61–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Barnhart KT, Fay CA, Suescum M, Sammel MD, Appleby D, Shaunik A, Dean AJ. Clinical factors affecting the accuracy of ultrasonography in symptomatic first-trimester pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:299–306.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Fleischer AC, Abramowicz J, Goncalves L, Manning FA, Monteagudo A, Toy E, Tritsch I. Transvaginal sonography of ectopic pregnancy. In: Sonography in obstetrics & gynecology: principles and practice. 8th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Professional; 2017. p. 81–108.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Brown DL, Doubilet PM. Transvaginal sonography for diagnosing ectopic pregnancy: positivity criteria and performance characteristics. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13:259–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Godin PA, Bassil S, Donnez J. An ectopic pregnancy developing in a previous caesarian section scar. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:398–400.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG. 2010;117:1119–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Fleischer AC, Abramowicz J, Goncalves L, Manning FA, Monteagudo A, Toy E, Tritsch I. Sonography of trophoblastic diseases. In: Sonography in obstetrics & gynecology: principles and practice. 8th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Professional; 2017. p. 899–908.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Fowler DJ, Lindsay I, Seckl MJ, Sebire NJ. Routine pre-evacuation ultrasound diagnosis of hydatidiform mole: experience of more than 1000 cases from a regional referral center. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27:56–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Lange RC, Duberg AC, McCarthy SM. An evaluation of MRI contrast in the uterus using synthetic imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1991;17:279–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Brown HK, Stoll BS, Nicosia SV, Fiorica JV, Hambley PS, Clarke LP, Silbiger ML. Uterine junctional zone: correlation between histologic findings and MR imaging. Radiology. 1991;179:409–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 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;179:403–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Ascher SM, Reinhold C. Imaging of cancer of the endometrium. Radiol Clin N Am. 2002;40:563–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Olesen F. Imaging techniques for evaluation of the uterine cavity and endometrium in premenopausal patients before minimally invasive surgery. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2002;57:388–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Frei KA, Kinkel K. Staging endometrial cancer: role of magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13:850–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Kim SH, Kim HD, Song YS, Kang SB, Lee HP. Detection of deep myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma: comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, CT, and MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1995;19:766–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. 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;186:163–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Valentin L. Imaging in gynecology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:881–906.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Buckley H, Fox H. Biopsy pathology of the endometrium. 2nd ed. London: Arnold; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Kepes JJ, Oswald O. Tissue artefacts caused by sponge in embedding cassettes. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991;15:810–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Tricia A. Murdock, Emanuela F. T. Veras & Robert J. Kurman

  2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Michael T. Mazur

Authors
  1. Tricia A. Murdock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emanuela F. T. Veras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert J. Kurman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael T. Mazur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Murdock, T.A., Veras, E.F.T., Kurman, R.J., Mazur, M.T. (2019). Methods of Endometrial Evaluation. In: Diagnosis of Endometrial Biopsies and Curettings. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98608-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98608-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98607-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98608-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation