4.3 Article

Endometrial thickness for invasive investigations in women with postmenopausal bleeding

期刊

CLIMACTERIC
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 117-120

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/13697131003660577

关键词

POSTMENOPAUSAL BLEEDING; ENDOMETRIAL THICKNESS; ENDOMETRIAL PATHOLOGY

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine the prevalence of endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women with endometrial thickness of 4.1-8 mm on transvaginal ultrasound scan. Design Prospective observational study carried out in the Heart of England NHS Trust Teaching Hospital in the West Midlands, UK, in a population of 58 women with postmenopausal bleeding. Method Prospective analysis of all women referred to the Rapid Access Clinic in the Heart of England Hospital with a history of postmenopausal bleeding over a 12-month period (April 2007-April 2008). Endometrial histology was taken as the final diagnosis. The main outcome measure was endometrial histology in women with postmenopausal bleeding with endometrial thickness of 4.1-8 mm. Results All women (n = 58) diagnosed with endometrial thickness of 4.1-8 mm on transvaginal sonography were included in the analysis. Pipelle endometrial biopsy could only be performed in 22 women (37.9%). Hysteroscopy was performed in 45 women (77.5%). Out of these, a histological diagnosis was available in 28 women (62.2%). In the remaining 17 women, the endometrium was observed as atrophic on hysteroscopy. In these 17 cases, either no or insufficient endometrial sample was obtained. In total, two (3.4%) women were diagnosed with complex endometrial hyperplasia and two (3.4%) women were diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma. Conclusion There was a significant prevalence of endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women with a history of postmenopausal bleeding and who had endometrial thickness of 4.1-8 mm. Therefore, the current recommendation of histological assessment on all women with endometrial thickness >4 mm should remain unchanged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据