Skip to main content
Download PDF
/v1/supplement/title

Clinical significance of endometrial abnormalities: an observational study on 1020 women undergoing hysteroscopic surgery

BMC Women's Health volume 22, Article number: 106 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The overall clinical significance of the finding of endometrial abnormalities in predicting premalignant/malignant endometrial lesions is still incompletely determined. For this reason the management, surgical or expectant, of women in which an endometrial abnormality has been detected is debated.

Methods

This retrospective study was carried out on 1020 consecutive women, 403 premenopausal and 617 postmenopausal, who underwent operative hysteroscopy in a University Hospital for suspected endometrial abnormalities, which were detected by transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and/or office hysteroscopy. In these women, the clinical characteristics and findings at TVS and hysteroscopy were evaluated in relation to the presence/absence of premalignant/malignant endometrial lesions at pathology report.

Results

The clinical characteristics considered were significantly different when the study women were compared according to their menopausal status. Premalignant/malignant lesions were found in 34/1020 (3.33%) women. Complex hyperplasia with atypia and endometrial cancer were detected in 22 (2.15%) and 12 (1.17%) cases, respectively. The postmenopausal women had a significantly higher risk of premalignant/malignant lesions than premenopausal women (O.R. = 5.098 [95% C.I.: 1.782–14.582], P < 0.005). This risk was even higher when abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) was present (O.R. = 5.20 [95% C.I.: 2.38–11.35], P < 0.0001). The most significant associations with premalignant/malignant endometrial lesions were BMI, AUB in postmenopause, overall polyp size, atypical aspect of endometrial polyps at hysteroscopy, postmenopausal status, diabetes mellitus and patient age.

Conclusions

The results of the present study suggest that the proper, aggressive or expectant, management of endometrial abnormalities should take into account both ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic findings together with the specific clinical characteristics of the patients.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Many studies have been carried out to establish the premalignant/malignant potential of specific endometrial abnormalities, such as polyps [1,2,3,4,5], thickened endometrium [6, 7] or alterations of the endometrial stripe that are detected by imaging in women with or without abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) [8, 9]. Management guidelines have been proposed accordingly [10,11,12,13] and risk factors for premalignant/malignant lesions of the endometrium have been established [14,15,16]. However, relatively less experimental information is available on the overall clinical significance of the finding of an endometrial abnormality observed at imaging before the final histologic diagnosis.

Endometrial abnormalities are frequently found in women in their late reproductive age, in menopause and in post-menopause. These abnormalities can be found during a transvaginal sonography (TVS) in case of specific symptoms such as AUB or pelvic pain, but also in asymptomatic women who have undergone some imaging (magnetic resonance, computerized tomography, abdominal sonography) for non-gynecologic symptoms or who had an office TVS during a routinary gynecologic check. They are due to a variety of underlying dysfunctional, benign, premalignant and malignant endometrial conditions often coexisting in the same patient. Moreover, they can also be associated with other concomitant problems not directly related to the endometrium, such as hypertension, obesity or tamoxifen treatment for estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. A complete diagnostic workup such as an office hysteroscopy cannot be carried out for all women due to several reasons including excessive patient discomfort, stenosis of the cervical uterine os, presence of concomitant other conditions such as heart disease, or excessive vaginal bleeding; these barriers can prevent the procedure and do not allow to obtain a final histological result unless operative hysteroscopy is carried out. For all these reasons, the finding of endometrial abnormalities can still represent a challenge for clinicians, mainly with regard to the prediction of benign, premalignant or malignant endometrial lesions.

In order to further clarify the overall clinical significance of the finding of endometrial abnormalities and to further improve the successive management of patients, the present study was carried out to investigate the association between several clinical conditions and risk factors for premalignant/malignant endometrial lesions in a population of women consecutively referred for hysteroscopic removal of endometrial lesions. Specific attention was paid to the association between the menopausal status of the study subjects and the risk of premalignant/malignant endometrial histology, since there is clear evidence that this risk is increased in postmenopausal women [17, 18].

Methods

Subjects and study design

This observational retrospective study included 1020 consecutive women who underwent operative hysteroscopy at Policlinico Tor Vergata University Hospital, Rome, Section of Gynecology, between January 1st, 2014 and September 30th, 2020. The study was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration for Medical Research involving Human Subjects and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Policlinico Tor Vergata University Hospital (Protocol number: 110/19).

Preoperative diagnosis has been made by TVS followed, whenever possible, by diagnostic office hysteroscopy. The indications for TVS were: (a) scheduled check in women treated with tamoxifen for ER+ breast cancer; (b) pelvic pain of unknown origin; (c) abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Moreover, abnormal endometrial findings were detected in several asymptomatic women (no AUB, no pelvic pain, no gynecologic symptoms) who underwent either office US during a routinary gynecologic visit as an extension of physical examination of the patient or in women undergoing other imaging techniques different from TVS for the diagnosis of non-gynecologic diseases. These women were then referred to our center for further investigation and/or surgery. The indication for office hysteroscopy was any abnormal endometrial finding at TVS, irrespective of the symptomatic/asymptomatic status of the women.

Indications for operative hysteroscopy were endometrial abnormalities detected by TVS and/or hysteroscopy. As a general rule at our institute, all the patients scheduled for surgery during the pre-hospitalization procedure underwent an accurate anamnestic general and gynecologic investigation, a pelvic examination, an internal TVS check before intervention, carried out following the IETA criteria to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions [19]; this in order to further confirm the indications for the surgical treatment. Preoperative office hysteroscopy was carried out unless the patients had been referred for surgery by other specialists external to the Hospital on the basis of an already performed hysteroscopy. Only patients who, after these pre-hospitalization procedures, had any endometrial abnormalities confirmed and therefore underwent operative hysteroscopy were included in this study. Women in which a diagnosis of uterine malformations was made were excluded from the study.

All patients gave their written informed consent after a detailed explanation of the procedure. Operative hysteroscopy was performed under general anesthesia. All procedures were assisted by video camera. A rigid unipolar 26-Fr resectoscope with an outer diameter of 8.7 mm and telescope 0° (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) and unipolar loop electrode were used. The uterine cavity was distended with 5% sorbitol-mannitol solution and irrigation pressure, flow rate and suction pressure were electronically controlled by a combined suction and irrigation pump (Storz Hamou Endomat, Neuhausen ob Eck, Germany). In all cases, the removed endometrial tissue was sent to histopathological examination which was performed by two expert pathologists with specific training and interest in gynecologic pathology. The diagnosis of endometrial polyp(s) was made/suspected by TVS and then confirmed or refused at the time of operative hysteroscopy. The size of endometrial polyp(s) was determined by the largest diameter of the lesion measured by TVS, once the diagnosis was confirmed at hysteroscopy; when the findings of TVS were doubtful in this respect, the size was determined by measuring the largest diameter of the lesion removed “en block”. The presence of multiple endometrial polyps was finally assessed at the time of operative hysteroscopy.

Women with premalignant/malignant histologic diagnoses underwent a successive hysterectomy (simple or radical according to the type and extension of the underlying lesion) and the removed organs and tissues were examined by the same pathologists. All the pathologic reports have been provided according to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 2014 [20].

Definitions

The definitions of the specific conditions of interest are the following:

  • Menopausal status: Women with serum levels of FSH > 30 IU/l, aged more 45 years and who had been amenorrhoeic for at least 12 months were defined as postmenopausal;

  • Systemic Hypertension and Diabetes: Women were defined hypertensive or diabetic if they were taking regular medications for the control of the disease;

  • Abnormal Uterine Bleeding (AUB): Any vaginal bleeding in postmenopausal women. In premenopausal women, AUB was defined, according to the 2011 FIGO classification [21], an acute periodic heavy bleeding or an abnormal uterine bleeding that has been present for the majority of the past six months or an intermenstrual bleeding;

  • Use of Tamoxifen: regular treatment for ER + breast cancer;

  • Thickened endometrium at TVS: endometrial thickness (ET) was considered abnormal if was ≥ 4 mm in postmenopausal women [22]; ET was considered abnormal in premenopausal women if was 8 mm in the proliferative phase and 16 mm in the secretory phase of the cycle [23];

  • Hysteroscopic findings: the thickened endometrium and the atypical aspect of the polyps were defined according to Ianieri et al. [24]. The non-mutually exclusive criteria used to define the atypical aspects of the polyps were the following: irregular surface; presence of necrotic and/or hemorragic areas; increased vessel density; vessel dilatation and distortion; shrinkage of the vessels; easy bleeding at touch.

  • Proliferative disorder: this condition is mainly associated with chronic anovulatory cycles. There is abundant proliferative endometrium associated with a mild degree of disorganization characterized by dilated glands. The histological finding is a picture that is neither normal proliferative nor hyperplastic [25].

Data collection and handling

All the clinical cards of the study women were carefully reviewed and the data of interest were collected and reported in a preconceived template. A computerized database available for the successive analyses was then constructed. Any collected information was anonymised and de-identified prior to analysis.

Statistical analysis

Data have been reported as means ± SD or percentages. The inferential statistical analysis in the minimal hypotheses was carried out by using Student’s t test and Chi Square test. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) have been reported. Taking into account the high number (n = 22) of the variables considered in the study and the low prevalence of premalignant/malignant lesions, a reliable multivariate analysis could not be performed, since the proper level of significance, calculated by simply applying the Bonferroni’s correction, would be 0.05/22 = 0.00227. Therefore, to perform more than one hypothesis test simultaneously, the Holm-Bonferroni closed testing procedure was followed. In this procedure, the single p-values corresponding to the minimal hypotheses have been corrected according to their specific position in the ordinal scale of the respective levels of statistical significance. The software used was the Statistical Software SPSS release 23. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

One thousand and twenty consecutive women were included in the study, 403 of which were premenopausal and 617 postmenopausal. The major clinical characteristics of the women are reported in Table 1. All the clinical characteristics considered (age, BMI, systemic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, AUB, use of Tamoxifen) were found to be significantly different when they were compared according to the presence or absence of menopause. Likewise the reasons for which the women required gynecologic investigation were significantly different according to the menopausal status. Indeed, premenopausal women were more frequently symptomatic than postmenopausal ones (O.R. = 3.740, 95% C.I.: 2.868–4.876, P < 0.0001).

Table 1 Major clinical characteristics of study women according to their menopausal status
Full size table

The final histological examination of the endometrial abnormalities detected overall premalignant/malignant lesions in 34/1020 (3.33%) of women. Complex hyperplasia with atypia and endometrial cancer were detected in 22 (2.15%) and 12 (1.17%) cases, respectively. The postmenopausal women had a significantly higher risk of having a premalignant/malignant histopathologic diagnosis than premenopausal (Table 2).

Table 2 Histopathologic diagnoses in the study women stratified by menopausal status
Full size table

The detail of the final histopathologic diagnoses, together with their respective prevalence rates in the study women, stratified by menopausal status, is reported in Table 2. The premenopausal women had significantly higher risk of dysfunctional proliferative disorders than postmenopausal women (O.R. = 10.23, 95% C.I.: 3.00–34.81, P < 0.0005) who, on the other hand, had significantly higher risk of both benign endometrial polyps (O.R. = 2.04, 95% C.I.: 1.46–2.85, P < 0.0001) and of premalignant/malignant lesions (complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia and endometrial cancer) (O.R. = 5.09, 95% C.I.: 1.78–4.58, P < 0.005). No cases of endometrial cancer were found in the group of premenopausal women; all the twelve cases of endometrial cancer detected were found in postmenopausal women. Four of these women at initial hysteroscopic biopsy were diagnosed to have a complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia which then resulted to be an endometrial cancer at the successive pathologic examination after hysterectomy. All of these four women underwent both TVS and diagnostic hysteroscopy. The first woman had a 10 mm diameter polyp diagnosed at TVS and confirmed as a polyp associated with atrophic endometrium both at diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy; the second woman, who at TVS had a thickened endometrium (12 mm), hysteroscopically presented an atrophic endometrium in the context of which a 25 mm polyp was recognized; this polyp was described to have a normal aspect at office hysteroscopy while presented an irregular surface at operative procedure. The third woman had a 10 mm polyp at TVS, which presented an increased vessel density in the context of an atrophic endometrium at both diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy. The fourth woman presented a thickened endometrium associated with a 29 × 18 mm polyp at TVS, diagnosed as a polyp with increased vessel density associated with atrophic endometrium at diagnostic hysteroscopy; however, at operative hysteroscopy the lesion appeared as a diffusely thickened endometrium, easily bleeding and irregular in color, thickness and vascularity. In all 4 cases the histological examination of the hysteroscopic biopsy revealed a complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia, while the subsequent histological diagnosis after the removal of the uterus revealed an endometrioid adenocarcinoma (G1, FIGO 1B in the first two cases; G1, FIGO 1A in the remaining ones). In three of these women with an initial diagnosis of atypical complex hyperplasia and a subsequent diagnosis of endometrial cancer after hysterectomy the malignancy originated from the implantation area of the polyp, which is often very difficult to be thoroughly assessed at hysteroscopy.

The associations between the clinical characteristics of study women and the types of endometrial lesions, benign or premalignant/malignant, are reported in Table 3.

Table 3 Association between the clinical characteristics of study women and the types (benign and premalignant/malignant) of endometrial lesions
Full size table

Of the 986 study women with final histologic diagnosis of benign lesions, 820 (83.16%) underwent diagnostic office hysteroscopy, which documented the presence of endometrial polyp(s) in 758 (92.43%) of them. In 468 of these 758 patients (61.74%), the diagnosis of endometrial polyp(s) had already been suspected on transvaginal ultrasound, even before performing diagnostic hysteroscopy; while in the remaining 290 women (38.26%) the diagnostic suspicion had been based on the ultrasound finding of an endometrial thickening. The total number of women affected by endometrial benign lesions who presented an endometrial thickening at ultrasound was 607/986 (61.56%). The sum of the number of women with a clear ultrasound imaging of an endometrial polyp and that of women with thickened endometrium is greater than 986 (468 plus 607) because 55 women at TVS presented a thickened endometrium in the context of which an image corresponding to an endometrial polyp was not clearly identifiable.

At hysteroscopy, polyps were single in 560 women and multiple in 198 study women, with a mean of 1.1 ± 0.34 per patient.

Overall, 903 endometrial polyps with a final histologic diagnosis of benign lesions were examined, 7 of which (0.78%) presented an atypical aspect at hysteroscopy.

Moreover, 257 (31.34%) of the 820 women with final histologic diagnosis of benign lesions who underwent diagnostic office hysteroscopy presented a thickened endometrium with respect to the age or phase of the menstrual cycle.

Twenty-nine (85.29%) of the 34 study women with final histologic diagnosis of premalignant/malignant lesions, underwent diagnostic office hysteroscopy. At hysteroscopy, 12 (41.38%) of these women presented thickened endometrium with respect to the age or phase of the menstrual cycle and 26 (89.65%) of them were affected by endometrial polyps(s), which were multiple in 10 cases, with an average number of polyps of 1.0 ± 0.1 per patient.

Overall, 33 endometrial polyps with a final histologic diagnosis of premalignant/malignant lesions were examined, 10 (30.3%) of which presented an atypical aspect at hysteroscopy.

In 12 of these 26 study women (46.15%), the diagnosis of endometrial polyp(s) had already been suspected at transvaginal ultrasound, even before performing diagnostic hysteroscopy; while in the remaining 14 women (53.85%) the diagnostic suspicion had been based on the ultrasound finding of an endometrial thickening. The total number of women affected by endometrial premalignant/malignant lesions who presented an endometrial thickening at ultrasound was 27/34 (79.41%). The sum of the number of women with a clear ultrasound imaging of an endometrial polyp and that of women with thickened endometrium is greater than 34 (12 plus 27) because 5 women at TVS presented a thickened endometrium in the context of which an image corresponding to an endometrial polyp was not clearly identifiable.

At univariate analysis, the following characteristics were found to be associated with an increased risk of premalignant/malignant lesions: age, BMI, postmenopausal status, systemic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, AUB in postmenopause, thickened endometrium at TVS, mean polyp size and atypical aspect of endometrial polyp at hysteroscopy (Table 3). When the women were stratified by different ranges of BMI, the risk for premalignant/malignant lesions increased accordingly to increasing BMI, but resulted significantly higher only in the group of women with the highest BMI values (≥ 40 kg/m2). Conversely, neither AUB in premenopausal women nor tamoxifen use were associated with any change in the risk for premalignant/malignant endometrial lesions.

All the study women underwent TVS before surgery. The finding of a thickened endometrium at TVS was associated with an increased risk of premalignant/malignant lesions in postmenopausal women only at univariate analysis (O.R. = 2.40; 95% C.I.:1.03–5.58, P < 0.05). Four hundred sixty-eight (47.46%) of the 986 women with benign lesions had endometrial polyp(s) diagnosed or suspected at TVS and histologically confirmed. This rate was similar to that found in women with premalignant/malignant histology (12/34, 35.29%) (O.R. = 0.60; 95% C.I.:0.29–1.23, P = 0.16).

When the data reported in Table 3 were analyzed by applying the Holm-Bonferroni closed testing procedure, the most significant associations with premalignant/malignant endometrial lesions were BMI, AUB in postmenopause, overall polyp size, atypical aspect of endometrial polyps at hysteroscopy, postmenopausal status, diabetes mellitus and patient age.

Discussion

The clinical management of the finding of an endometrial abnormality can still represent a challenge for gynecologists despite the considerable research carried out in this area. This is due to the fact that women with an endometrial abnormal finding are a very composite population which clinicians have to deal with: pre- or postmenopausal women with a large range of age, symptomatic subjects with AUB of variable extent, asymptomatic subjects in which an endometrial abnormality has been detected accidentally by an office ultrasound, patients with no, single or multiple risk factors for premalignant or malignant endometrial lesions, patients with variable surgical risk. A major clinical problem in this context is whether surgical removal should be always performed in the presence of an endometrial abnormality or it is indicated only in specific clinical settings, taking into account that the majority of endometrial lesions have a high likelihood to be benign, particularly in premenopausal women [10, 25]. The relative rarity of premalignant and malignant endometrial lesions is somehow reassuring for both clinicians and patients, when an endometrial abnormality is detected; however, this low prevalence implies the recruitment of a very high number of subjects to obtain a reliable assessment predictive of malignancy when all the potentially relevant variables—clinical, ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic—are included together in a multivariate logistic regression model. This problem has been raised in a recent, well-conducted Italian multicentric study aimed to evaluate the predictors of atypical histology in endometrial polyps removed by hysteroscopy [1]. This can also explain why many studies carried out on this subject, including the present one, are retrospective in their design [1,2,3,4, 14] or take into account only selected women with specific clinical situations, such as symptomatic or asymptomatic postmenopausal women [5, 8, 25, 26]. In this context, the present study was performed to evaluate the clinical significance, in terms of histologic endometrial atypia, of the finding of endometrial abnormalities, taking into account several risk factors for premalignant/malignant endometrial lesions which were ranked by strength of association. The results of this study, whose major limitation is its retrospective and observational design, can allow drawing some reasonable conclusions.

The stratification of the study population according to the menopausal status showed that pre-and postmenopausal women form two groups of women strongly different from each other according to all the clinical characteristic considered in the study; this difference was observed not only for age, BMI, hypertension, diabetes and use of tamoxifen, as expected, but also for the reasons of investigation, which were more often clinical, particularly AUB, in the premenopausal women and ultrasonographic in the postmenopausal ones. Indeed, in premenopausal women the presence of symptoms was more frequent than in postmenopausal ones (Table 1). In postmenopausal women, the rate of AUB was significantly lesser than that of premenopausal women (O.R. = 0.30, 95% C.I.: 0.23–0.40, P < 0.0001); however, in these women an endometrial abnormality detected by office ultrasound performed in asymptomatic subjects during a routinary periodic check, carried out as an extension of physical examination of the patient, was a major reason for further investigation. In our study, the rate of postmenopausal women who underwent diagnostic hysteroscopy was significantly lower than that of premenopausal patients. There are several explanations for this finding: excessive discomfort, tight stenosis of the cervix, or coexisting medical conditions preventing a safe procedure. Some patients had already undergone an office hysteroscopy at the time of their initial referral to hospital.

The stratification of the study women according to menopausal status also revealed that postmenopausal women had a significantly higher risk of having premalignant/malignant histopathologic diagnosis than premenopausal women. Indeed, in these women the overall rate of histological premalignant/malignant lesions (4.46%) was significantly higher than that found in premenopausal women (0.99%) with an O.R. of 5.09 (95% C.I.: 1.78–4.58, P < 0.005) (Table 2). This is in accordance with the results of other studies [3, 25] and suggests that in the vast majority of premenopausal women there is no need for an immediate surgical removal of the endometrial abnormality detected. A careful follow-up could be a reasonable management option in these patients, also taking into account that in these women only premalignant lesions and no cases of cancer were detected (Table 2). Conversely, a more aggressive attitude toward surgical removal is appropriate when endometrial abnormalities are found in postmenopausal women. A further relevant role in the management of these patients could be played by the coexistence of additional clinical characteristics associated with significantly increased risk for endometrial histological atypia. This is particularly relevant when AUB is present in postmenopausal women. Indeed, in our study premalignant/lesions were found in 10.9% of postmenopausal women with AUB and only in 2.3% of postmenopausal women without AUB (O.R. = 5.20, 95% C.I.: 2.38–11.35, P < 0.0001) (Table 3). All the women in which an endometrial cancer was diagnosed were postmenopausal with AUB. The low rate of premalignant/malignant lesions in postmenopausal women without AUB suggests that a conservative approach with careful surveillance could be a management option in these women.

The assessment of the association between the clinical characteristics considered in this study and the finding of premalignant/malignant endometrial lesions at histology confirmed the relevance of the known risk factors. When the P-value close testing was applied to the results obtained at univariate analysis, the most relevant clinical characteristics found to be associated with endometrial atypia or cancer were, in a decreasing order of significance, the high BMI, the presence of AUB in postmenopause, the size of polyp, the atypical aspect of the endometrial polyp at hysteroscopy, the postmenopausal status and the concomitant diabetes mellitus. Again, the premenopausal status had a significant negative association with premalignant/malignant endometrial lesions at histology.

Conclusions

The findings of this study can further aid clinicians to properly manage the patients with endometrial abnormalities by balancing the need for an aggressive management of lesions with high likelihood to be premalignant/malignant with a more conservative approach, shared with the carefully informed patient, for lesions with low probability to have premalignant/malignant histology. However, only prospective studies, carried out on very large cohorts of women taking into account all the clinical, ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic characteristics of patients in relation to endometrial histology, will definitely clarify the overall clinical significance of the finding of an endometrial abnormality.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Garuti G, Luberti M, Leone FPG, Perrini G, Dealberti D, Vitelli V, et al. Prevalence and predictors of atypical histology in endometrial polyps removed by hysteroscopy: a secondary analysis of the SICMIG hysteroscopy trial. Facts Views Vis ObGyn. 2019;11(2):127–34.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wang J-H, Zhao J, Lin J. Opportunities and risk factors for premalignant and malignant transformation of endometrial polyps: management strategies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(1):53–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wethington SL, Herzog TJ, Burke WM, Sun X, Lerner JP, Lewin SN, Wright JD. Risk and predictors of malignancy in women with endometrial polyps. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(13):3819–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. da Rocha de Azevedo JM, da Rocha de Azevedo LM, Freitas F, Wender MCO. Endometrial polyps: when to resect? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293(3):639–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ferrazzi E, Zupi E, Leone FP, Savelli L, Omodei U, Moscarini M, et al. How often are endometrial polyps malignant in asymptomatic postmenopausal women? A multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(3):235.e1-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ghoubara A, Emovon E, Sundar S, Ewies A. Thickened endometrium in asymptomatic postmenopausal women—determining an optimum threshold for prediction of atypical hyperplasia and cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(8):1146–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Alcázar JL, Bonilla L, Marucco J, Padilla AI, Chacón E, Manzour N, et al. Risk of endometrial cancer and endometrial hyperplasia with atypia in asymptomatic postmenopausal women with endometrial thickness ≥11 mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Ultrasound. 2018;46(9):565–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ghoubara A, Sundar S, Ewies A. Predictors of malignancy in endometrial polyps: study of 421 women with postmenopausal bleeding. Climateric. 2018;21(4):82–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark TJ, Stevenson H. Endometrial polyps and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB-P): what is the relationship, how are they diagnosed and how are they treated? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;40:89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of endometrial polyps. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(1):3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Levy-Zauberman Y, Pourcelot AG, Capmas P, Fernandez H. Update on the management of abnormal uterine bleeding. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017;46(8):613–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Singh S, Best C, Dunn S, Leyland N, Wolfman WL. No. 292-Abnormal uterine bleeding in pre-menopausal women. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018;40(5):e391–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Heavy menstrual bleeding: assessment and management. London: NICE, 2018.

  14. Raglan O, Kalliala I, Markozannes G, Cividini S, Gunter MJ, Nautiyal J, et al. Risk factors for endometrial cancer: an umbrella review of the literature. Int J Cancer. 2019;145(7):1719–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Njoku K, Abiola J, Russell J, Crosbie EJ. Endometrial cancer prevention in high-risk women. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;65:66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ricci E, Moroni S, Parazzini F, Surace M, Benzi G, Salerio B, et al. Risk factors for endometrial hyperplasia: results from a case-control study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2002;12(3):257–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Leslie KK, Thiel KW, Goodheart MJ, De Geest K, Jia Y, Yang S. Endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2012;39(2):255–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Aggarwal A, Hatti A, Tirumuru SS, Nair SS. Management of asymptomatic postmenopausal women referred to outpatient hysteroscopy service with incidental finding of thickened endometrium—a UK district general hospital experience. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;S1553–4650(21):00092–3.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leone FP, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Valentin L, Epstein E, Goldstein SR, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the international endometrial tumor analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(1):103–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs, World Health Organization classification of tumours, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), IVth Edition, Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH Eds, pp 126–136, Lyon 2014.

  21. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Broder MS, Fraser IS. FIGO classification system (PALM.COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in non gravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2011;113(1):3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 734: The role of transvaginal ultrasonography in evaluating the endometrium of women with postmenopausal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(5):e124–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Park YR, Lee SW, Kim Y, Bae IY, Kim HK, Choe J, et al. Endometrial thicjness cut-off value by transvaginal ultrasonography for screening of endometrial pathology in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2019;62(6):445–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ianieri MM, Staniscia T, Pontrelli G, Di Spiezio SA, Manzi FS, Recchi M, et al. A new hysteroscopic risk scoring system for diagnosing endometrial hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(5):712–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lastra RR, McCluccage WG, Ellenson LH. Benign diseases of endometrium. In: Kurman RJ, Ellenson LH, Ronnett BM, editors. Blaustein’s pathology of the female genital tract. 7th ed. Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2019. p. 404–5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jiang T, Yuan Q, Zhou Q, Zhu Y, Lv S, Cao Y, et al. Do endometrial lesions require removal? A retrospective study. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19(1):61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This article was supported by Grant no. E84I20000670005 from Tor Vergata University, Rome (recipient: C.T.).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Lodovico Patrizi and Carlo Ticconi have contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Sciences, Section of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

    Lodovico Patrizi, Carlo Ticconi, Barbara Borelli, Francesco Sesti, Caterina Exacoustos & Luisa Casadei

  2. Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

    Susanna Finocchiaro & Alessandro Mauriello

  3. Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

    Carlo Chiaramonte

Authors
  1. Lodovico Patrizi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Ticconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara Borelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susanna Finocchiaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlo Chiaramonte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francesco Sesti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alessandro Mauriello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Caterina Exacoustos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Luisa Casadei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LP, CT and LC conceived and designed the study, interpreted the results, made clinical interpretations of the data and wrote the manuscript. LP, FS and BB performed the interventions. BB was responsible for data collection and patients’ dataset update. CC carried out the statistical analysis of the data. AM and SF performed the pathology analyses of the samples. CE and AM made clinical interpretations of the data and critically revised multiple versions of the manuscript. All authors participated in the revision and final approval of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo Ticconi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration for Medical Research involving Human Subjects and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Policlinico Tor Vergata University Hospital (Protocol number: 110/19). All patients gave their written informed consent after a detailed explanation of the procedure. Operative hysteroscopy was performed under general anesthesia.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

There are no financial or other potential conflicts of interest for any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patrizi, L., Ticconi, C., Borelli, B. et al. Clinical significance of endometrial abnormalities: an observational study on 1020 women undergoing hysteroscopic surgery. BMC Women's Health 22, 106 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01682-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01682-5

Keywords