Sanam Moradan, Majid Mir Mohammad Khani
Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Research Center, Semnan, Iran E-mail :
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(12):4971-5. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.12.4971.
Several methods have been presented for the evaluation of the endometrium in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding, which include minimal invasive and invasive approaches such as diagnostic curettage or endometrial biopsy by Pipelle. Many studies have been performed in order to compare two methods; diagnostic curettage and outpatient endometrial biopsy. This investigation compared sampling adequacy, endometrial histopathology, failure rates, duration and costs between diagnostic curettage in a hospital and endometrial biopsy.
This single blind clinical trial was performed on 130 patients older than 35 years who was referred to Amir training hospital in 2013 for elective diagnostic curettage because of abnormal uterine bleeding. For all patients eligible for the study, an endometrial sample by Pipelle was taken without anesthesia or dilatation. Then under general anesthesia diagnostic curettage was performed by sharp curette. Sampling duration was calculated and both samples were sent to the same pathologist. The diagnostic values of two methods in the diagnosis of normal endometrium, endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma were compared. The costs of these two methods were also compared. Data analysis was performed by SPSS (version 16.0) software. Chi-Square, Fisher, and Pearson tests were used and were considered statistically significant at P values less than 0.05.
Two methods were agreed upon 88% of sampling adequacy and 94% of pathological results. Specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 90% for detection of proliferative endometrium, secretory endometrium, simple hyperplasia without atypia and 100% for cancer were recorded. Pipelle diagnostic accuracy in comparison with curettage, have been reported over 97%, so the failure rate in this study was below 5%. Sensitivity of Pipelle for detection of atrophic endometrium was reported below 50%. Duration and cost was lower in Pipelle versus curettage.
It is concluded that due to high agreement and cohesion coefficient between curettage and Pipelle on the issue of sampling adequacy, histopathology finding (except atrophic endometrium), low failure rate, duration of sampling and cost, Pipelle can be introduced as a suitable alternative of diagnostic curettage.
已提出多种评估异常子宫出血患者子宫内膜的方法,包括微创和有创方法,如诊断性刮宫或使用 Pipelle 进行子宫内膜活检。为比较两种方法——诊断性刮宫和门诊子宫内膜活检,已开展了许多研究。本研究比较了医院诊断性刮宫与子宫内膜活检在取样充分性、子宫内膜组织病理学、失败率、操作时长及成本方面的差异。
这项单盲临床试验针对 130 例年龄超过 35 岁的患者开展,这些患者于 2013 年因异常子宫出血被转诊至 Amir 培训医院接受择期诊断性刮宫。对于所有符合研究条件的患者,在未进行麻醉或宫颈扩张的情况下,使用 Pipelle 获取子宫内膜样本。然后在全身麻醉下,用锐刮匙进行诊断性刮宫。计算取样时长,并将两份样本送至同一位病理学家处。比较了两种方法在诊断正常子宫内膜、子宫内膜增生和癌方面的诊断价值。还比较了这两种方法的成本。采用 SPSS(版本 16.0)软件进行数据分析。使用卡方检验、Fisher 检验和 Pearson 检验,P 值小于 0.05 被认为具有统计学意义。
两种方法在 88%的取样充分性和 94%的病理结果上达成一致。记录到检测增殖期子宫内膜、分泌期子宫内膜、无异型性的单纯增生时特异性为 100%,敏感性为 90%,检测癌症时特异性为 100%。与刮宫相比,Pipelle 的诊断准确性报告超过 97%,因此本研究中的失败率低于 5%。据报道,Pipelle 检测萎缩性子宫内膜的敏感性低于 50%。与刮宫相比,Pipelle 的操作时长和成本更低。
得出结论,由于刮宫与 Pipelle 在取样充分性、组织病理学结果(萎缩性子宫内膜除外)、低失败率、取样时长及成本问题上具有高度一致性和关联系数,Pipelle 可被视为诊断性刮宫的合适替代方法。