Utility of Pipet Curet Cytology and Biopsy as a Diagnostic Method for Endometrial Endometrioid Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to determine the utility of Pipet Curet cytology (PCC) and Pipet Curet biopsy (PCB) for diagnosing uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC).

METHODS

We divided 77 patients with EEC into two groups per Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grades: G1 (n = 44) and G2/3 (n = 33) and compared the diagnostic sensitivity of PCC, PCB, and PCC and PCB combined, retrospectively. Next, we investigated any diagnostic discordance between PCC-based and PCB-based diagnoses per FIGO grade group.

RESULTS

The diagnostic sensitivity of PCC, PCB, and the two modalities combined was significantly higher for G2/3 EECs than for G1 EECs (72.7% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.0209; 84.8% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.0434; and 93.9% vs. 65.9%, p = 0.0046, respectively), likely due to more friable cancer cells in higher grade EEC cases. Among our 77 EEC patients, there were 4 patients (5.19%) with PCC-based concordant but PCB-based discordant results against EEC, in the G2/3 group predominantly. Diagnostic sensitivity of all cases increased from 72.7% (56/77) by PCB alone to 77.9% (60/77) by use of both modalities combined.

CONCLUSION

Cytologic evaluation can reduce the number of false-negative histologic diagnoses. By providing complementary information, the two modalities combined from the Pipet Curet procedure would be valuable as a diagnostic method for EEC.