Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 2;12(12):3029.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12123029.

Clinical, Sonographic, and Hysteroscopic Features of Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosed after Hysterectomy in Patients with a Preoperative Diagnosis of Atypical Hyperplasia: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Luca Pace  1 , Silvia Actis  1 , Matteo Mancarella  1 , Lorenzo Novara  2 , Luca Mariani  1 , Gaetano Perrini  2 , Francesca Govone  1 , Alessandra Testi  1 , Paola Campisi  3 , Annamaria Ferrero  1 , Nicoletta Biglia  1
Affiliations

Clinical, Sonographic, and Hysteroscopic Features of Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosed after Hysterectomy in Patients with a Preoperative Diagnosis of Atypical Hyperplasia: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Luca Pace et al. Diagnostics (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) is a precancerous condition implying a high risk of concurrent endometrial cancer (EC), which might be occult and only diagnosed at postoperative histopathological examination after hysterectomy. Our study aimed to investigate potential differences in preoperative clinical, sonographic, and hysteroscopic characteristics in patients with AEH and postoperative diagnosis of EC.

Methods: a retrospective single-center study was carried out on a case series of 80 women with AEH undergoing diagnostic workup, including ultrasonography and hysteroscopy, with subsequent hysterectomy. Women with AEH confirmed at the histopathological examination were compared with patients with a postoperative diagnosis of EC.

Results: in our population, EC was diagnosed in 53 women, whereas the preoperative diagnosis of AEH was confirmed in 27 cases. At ultrasonography, women with occult EC showed greater endometrial thickness (20.3 mm vs. 10.3 mm, p 0.001) and size of the endocavitary lesion (maximum diameter 25.2 mm vs. 10.6 mm, p 0.001), and a higher prevalence of irregular endometrial-myometrial junction (40.5% vs. 6.7%, p 0.022) and endouterine vascularization at color Doppler (64.2% vs. 34.6%, p 0.017). At hysteroscopy, patients with occult EC showed a higher prevalence of necrosis (44.2% vs. 4.2%, p 0.001) and atypical vessels (70.6% vs. 33.3%, p 0.003), whereas true AEH mainly presented as a protruding intracavitary lesion (77.8% vs. 50.9%, p 0.029). In EC, subjective assessment by the operator was more frequently indicative of cancer (80.0% vs. 12.5%). No difference was found for clinical variables.

Conclusions: occult EC in AEH may exhibit some differences in ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic patterns of presentation compared with real AEH, which could prompt a more significant suspect for the possible presence of concurrent EC at preoperative diagnostic workup.

Keywords: atypical endometrial hyperplasia; endometrial cancer; hysteroscopy; transvaginal ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Histopathological images of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (a–c).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS), endometrial thickness of two patients with a preoperative di-agnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). (a) TVUS: 7.7 mm of endometrial thickness with a posterior leiomyoma of the uterus, postoperative diagnosis of AEH. (b) TVUS: 22.8 mm of en-dometrial thickness, postoperative diagnosis of endometrial cancer pT1a G2.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Hysteroscopic image of atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Atypical vascularization at hysteroscopic evaluation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sobczuk K., Sobczuk A. New classification system of endometrial hyperplasia WHO 2014 and its clinical implications. Menopausal Rev. 2017;16:107–111. doi: 10.5114/pm.2017.70589. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sanderson P.A., Critchley H.O., Williams A.R., Arends M.J., Saunders P.T. New concepts for an old problem: The diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia. Hum. Reprod. Updat. 2017;23:232–254. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw042. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vetter M.H., Smith B., Benedict J., Hade E.M., Bixel K., Copeland L.J., Cohn D.E., Fowler J.M., O’Malley D., Salani R., et al. Preoperative predictors of endometrial cancer at time of hysterectomy for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia or complex atypical hyperplasia. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020;222:60.e1–60.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.08.002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Trimble C.L., Kauderer J., Zaino R., Silverberg S., Lim P.C., Burke J.J., Alberts D., Curtin J. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2006;106:812–819. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21650. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Manap N.A., Ng B.K., Phon S.E., Karim A.K.A., Lim P.S., Fadhil M. Endometrial Cancer in Pre-Menopausal Women and Younger: Risk Factors and Outcome. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022;19:9059. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159059. - DOI - PMC - PubMed