Abstract
Purpose
To compare diagnostic accuracy and adequacy of pipelle endometrial biopsy with dilatation and curettage.
Methods
From October 2007 to November 2009, 673 patients were evaluated with pipelle endometrium biopsy, D&C and hysterectomy in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty. 478 patients underwent pipelle and D&C, 212 patients underwent pipelle and hysterectomy and 161 patients underwent D&C and hysterectomy. Uterine findings were grouped under five headings: normal, hyperplasia, focal lesion, atypia, and atrophy. Histologic sections from pipelle biopsy or D&C specimens were compared with each other and hysterectomy specimens. Chi-square, Mc.Nemar, and Fisher-exact tests were used as appropriate. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each method used in the study.
Results
We compared the histological results of pipelle biopsy and D&C. Statistically outcomes of pipelle and D&C were concordant with each other. Concordance rate was 67 % between pipelle and hysterectomy and 70 % between D&C and hysterectomy. Sensitivity of pipelle biopsy in detection of hyperplasia and aytpia was 67 and 75 %, respectively. Sensitivity of D&C for detecting hyperplasia and atypia was 62 and 83 %. NPV of pipelle biopsy and D&C was 99 % for malignancy.
Conclusions
Pipelle biopsy and D&C showed almost equal success rate in the diagnosis of endometrial pathologies. Neither pipelle nor D&C is adequate method for focal endometrial pathologies. Both biopsy methods are not perfect, but pipelle biopsy is a cheaper and easy technique compared with D&C, and ultrasonographic findings of endometrium should be considered prior to endometrial biopsy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Oehler MK, Rees MC (2003) Menorrhagia: an update. Acta Obtet Gynecol Scand 82(5):405–422 (review)
Word B, Gravlee LC, Wideman GL (1958) The fallacy of simple uterine curettage. Obstet Gynecol 12(6):642–648
Stock RJ, Kanbour A (1975) Prehysterectomy curettage. Obstet Gynecol 45(5):537–541
Rodriguez GC, Yaqub N, King ME (1993) A comparison of the pipelle device and 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 168(1 Pt 1):55–59
Ferry J, Farnsworth A, Webster M, Wren B (1993) The efficacy of the pipelle endometrial biopsy in detecting endometrial carcinoma. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 33(1):76–78
Dijkhuizen FP, Mol BW, Brölmann HA, Heintz AP (2000) The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. Cancer 89(8):1765–1772
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(3):313–321
Barut A, Barut F, Arikan I, Harma M, Harma MI, Ozmen Bayar U (2012) Comparison of the histopathological diagnoses of preoperative dilatation and curettage and hysterectomy specimens. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 38(1):16–22
Fothergill DJ, Brown VA, Hill AS (1992) Histological sampling of the endometrium—a comparison between formal curettage and the pipelle sampler. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 99(9):779–780
Goldchmit R, Katz Z, Blickstein I, Caspi B, Dgani R (1993) The accuracy of endometrial pipelle sampling with and without sonographic measurement of endometrial thickness. Obstet Gynecol 82(5):727–730
Guido RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Rulin MC, Christopherson WA (1995) Pipelle endometrial sampling. Sensitivity in the detection of endometrial cancer. J Reprod Med 40(8):553–555
Huang GS, Gebb JS, Einstein MH, Shahabi S, Novetsky AP, Goldberg GL (2007) Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling for the detection of high-grade endometrial tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196(3):243.e1–243.e5
Leitao MM Jr, Kehoe S, Barakat RR, Alektiar K, Gattoc LP, Rabbitt C, Chi DS, Soslow RA, Abu-Rustum NR (2009) Comparison of D&C and office endometrial biopsy accuracy in patients with FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 113(1):105–108
Epstein E, Ramirez A, Skoog L, Valentin L (2001) Dilatation and curettage fails to detect most focal lesions in the uterine cavity in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80(12):1131–1136
Bettocchi S, Ceci O, Vicino M, Marello F, Impedovo L, Selvaggi L (2001) Diagnostic inadequacy of dilatation and curettage. Fertil Steril 75(4):803–805
Bradley LD (2011) Diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding with biopsy or hysteroscopy. Menopause 18(4):425–433
Bingol B, Gunenc MZ, Gedikbasi A, Guner H, Tasdemir S, Tiras B (2011) Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonohysterography, transvaginalsonography and hysteroscopy in postmenopausal bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284(1):111–117
Mathew M, Gowri V, Rizvi SG (2010) Saline infusion sonohysterography—an effective tool for evaluation of the endometrial cavity in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89(1):140–142
Cepni I, Ocal P, Erkan S, Saricali FS, Akbas H, Demirkiran F, Idil M, Bese T (2005) Comparison of transvaginal sonography, saline infusion sonography and hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine cavity pathologies. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 45(1):30–35
Conflict of interest
There are no supports in financial, disclosure and acknowledgements.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Demirkiran, F., Yavuz, E., Erenel, H. et al. Which is the best technique for endometrial sampling? Aspiration (pipelle) versus dilatation and curettage (D&C). Arch Gynecol Obstet 286, 1277–1282 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2438-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2438-8