Original Article
Transvaginal Ultrasonography Compared with Endometrial Biopsy for the Detection of Endometrial Disease
N Engl J Med 1997; 337:1792-1798December 18, 1997
- Abstract
Background
Transvaginal ultrasonography is a noninvasive procedure that may be used to detect endometrial disease. However, its usefulness in screening for asymptomatic disease in postmenopausal women before or during treatment with estrogen or estrogen–progesterone replacement is not known.
Methods
We compared the sensitivity and specificity of transvaginal ultrasonography and endometrial biopsy for the detection of endometrial disease in 448 postmenopausal women who received estrogen alone, cyclic or continuous estrogen–progesterone, or placebo for three years.
Results
Concurrent ultrasonographic and biopsy results were available for 577 examinations in the 448 women, 99 percent of whom were undergoing routine annual follow-up. Endometrial thickness was less than 5 mm in 45 percent of the examinations, 5 to 10 mm in 41 percent, more than 10 mm in 12 percent, and not measured in 2 percent, and it was higher in the women receiving estrogen alone than in the other groups. Biopsy detected 11 cases of serious disease: 1 case of adenocarcinoma, 2 cases of atypical simple hyperplasia, and 8 cases of complex hyperplasia. Biopsy also detected simple hyperplasia in 20 cases. At a threshold value of 5 mm for endometrial thickness, transvaginal ultrasonography had a positive predictive value of 9 percent for detecting any abnormality, with 90 percent sensitivity, 48 percent specificity, and a negative predictive value of 99 percent. With this threshold, a biopsy would be indicated in more than half the women, only 4 percent of whom had serious disease.
Conclusions
Transvaginal ultrasonography has a poor positive predictive value but a high negative predictive value for detecting serious endometrial disease in asymptomatic postmenopausal women.
Media in This Article
Figure 2
Mean (±SD) Endometrial Thickness According to Biopsy Findings.Figure 3
Receiver-Operator-Characteristic Curves for the Sensitivity and Specificity of Transvaginal Ultrasonography in Detecting Abnormal Biopsy Findings in the Women Taking Estrogen Alone and in All the Women.Article Activity
- Article
Endometrial biopsy is the standard test for detecting endometrial disease, but its value is limited by uncertainty about the origin of the tissue, which is obtained in a blind procedure, and the difficulty of obtaining adequate specimens in some women. Mainly on the basis of data from women presenting with uterine bleeding1,2 or known disease,3,4 transvaginal ultrasonography has been recommended as a less invasive substitute for biopsy in detecting endometrial disease.5-11 Since the cost of these two procedures is similar, ultrasonography would be preferable if it were as useful in detecting endometrial disease as biopsy, because ultrasonography causes less discomfort and has fewer complications.
The Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) trial provided an opportunity to compare ultrasonography with endometrial biopsy for the detection of endometrial hyperplasia in a largely asymptomatic cohort of postmenopausal women enrolled in a clinical trial of hormone-replacement therapy with estrogen or estrogen–progestin. In the PEPI trial, endometrial biopsy was performed at least annually; transvaginal ultrasonography was added during the second year. To determine the usefulness of ultrasonography in screening for endometrial disease in postmenopausal women, we studied the concordance of abnormal endometrial thickness, as measured by ultrasonography, with diagnoses based on histopathological examination of endometrial-biopsy specimens.
Methods
The PEPI trial tested the effects of several ovarian-hormone–replacement regimens on risk factors for heart disease in postmenopausal women 45 to 64 years old who had been postmenopausal for no more than 10 years. Women with or without a uterus were randomly assigned to receive placebo or one of four active treatments for three years. All the active treatments included daily conjugated equine estrogens (0.625 mg per day). The treatments were estrogen alone, estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate at a dose of 2.5 mg daily, estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate at a dose of 10 mg per day for 12 days per month, and estrogen plus micronized progesterone at a dose of 200 mg per day for 12 days per month. The details of the study design and the primary results have been reported elsewhere.12
To be eligible for the study, women with a uterus had to have normal results on endometrial biopsy at base line. Endometrial biopsy was performed annually thereafter. Approximately halfway through the trial, these women were asked to undergo transvaginal ultrasonography before each biopsy. The original and modified protocols were approved by the institutional review board at each participating center, and all the women gave informed consent.
Endometrial Biopsy
Endometrial biopsies were performed at the time of the annual visits, regardless of whether the women had continued with their assigned treatment. Biopsies were not restricted to a particular time of the medication cycle. The day of the cycle was recorded. The biopsy results included in this analysis were obtained at the second or third annual visit. Additional biopsies were performed either as follow-up for abnormal biopsy results or if there was unexpected vaginal bleeding.
Histopathological Findings
All biopsy specimens were evaluated by at least two pathologists, one at the participating clinical center and another at the National Cancer Institute. When the two pathologists disagreed on the interpretation of the findings, a third pathologist served as arbiter. None of the pathologists were aware of the treatment assignments. When all three pathologists disagreed, the diagnosis was determined by the gynecologist at the participating center.13 The diagnostic categories were normal, simple hyperplasia, complex hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and adenocarcinoma. The last three categories were considered to represent seriously abnormal findings.
Ultrasonography
Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed no more than 48 hours before endometrial biopsy by technicians who were unaware of the treatment assignments. The uterus was scanned in the coronal and longitudinal projections with the use of 5.0-to-7.5-MHz vaginal transducers. The thickest anteroposterior diameter of the endometrial stripe was measured in the sagittal plane with either digital calipers on the display or manual calipers on an image recorded to scale. Alternatively, each layer of the endometrium was measured separately in the transverse plane of the longitudinal view, and the values were summed. The diameter of any fluid collection was subtracted. The hypoechoic halo sometimes seen surrounding the endometrial stripe was not included. The endometrial thickness was recorded in 1-mm increments.
A standard form was used to record the date of the examination, the equipment used, endometrial thickness, current hormone therapy, the technical adequacy of the examination, and in the case of a technically unsatisfactory examination, the contributing factors. A representative image was printed and affixed to the form.
Nearly all technically unsatisfactory ultrasonograms yielded thickness measurements. They were included in most of the analyses, because the primary goal of the study was to determine whether ultrasonography could replace biopsy. Some analyses, however, were stratified according to whether the ultrasonogram was satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
On the basis of reported data,14-17 we selected 4 mm as the maximal normal endometrial thickness. Because some authors have used 8 mm18 or 10 mm19 as the upper limit for normal thickness, we also tested a threshold value of 9 mm in women receiving treatments associated with thicker endometria (estrogen alone and cyclical combinations). If the thickness could not be measured, the result was recorded as “no thickness.”
Statistical Analysis
Means and standard deviations were calculated for demographic factors. Distributions of endometrial thickness were determined for each diagnostic category. Endometrial thicknesses of 5 mm or greater and 9 mm or greater were classified as abnormal for analyses of the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of ultrasonography as compared with biopsy.
Because a goal of the study was to evaluate ultrasonography as a substitute for biopsy, the sensitivity and predictive values were recalculated after recoding unsatisfactory examinations with abnormal endometrial thickness from positive to negative, on the assumption that ultrasonographic screening would not be conclusive and biopsy would be needed. Similarly, sonograms yielding no thickness were excluded from the numerator in calculations of specificity, because, if no measurement was made, the absence of disease was not confirmed. Differences between women with satisfactory examinations and those with unsatisfactory examinations were evaluated by t-tests for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical factors. The association between the rate of unsatisfactory examinations and endometrial thickness was assessed with the use of a test for trends among proportions.20 All statistical tests were two-sided. Cubic splines were used to fit smoothed receiver-operator-characteristic curves.21
Results
The 875 women enrolled in the PEPI trial were similar to all U.S. women of the same age in terms of reproductive and gynecologic characteristics22; 596 of the women (68 percent) had a uterus. In this ancillary study, 458 women underwent 595 ultrasonographic examinations. The mean (±SD) age of the women was 59±4 years, the mean time since menopause was 8±3 years, and mean time since randomization was 31±5 months.
Biopsy results could not be matched with ultrasonographic results in 18 cases; the data from these examinations were excluded from the analyses. Thus, the present study describes the findings in 577 examinations performed in 448 women. Seven of these examinations (1 percent) were performed at a time other than an annual screening visit.
Forty ultrasonographic examinations were unsatisfactory. Of the 30 examinations for which a reason was given, uterine myoma was the reason in 25. The distribution of ultrasonographic examinations according to the availability of biopsy results, whether the examination was satisfactory, and treatment group is shown in Figure 1Figure 1
Transvaginal Ultrasonography and Treatment at the Time of Examination in Women Enrolled in the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions Trial.. Women with seriously abnormal histopathological findings were more likely to have unsatisfactory ultrasonographic examinations (27 percent vs. 7 percent, P = 0.04). An unsatisfactory ultrasonographic examination was associated with fewer pregnancies (P = 0.03) and a shorter time since menopause (P = 0.05) and was marginally associated with a higher body-mass index (P = 0.07) and no active hormone therapy (P = 0.08).Twenty-six percent of the examinations were performed in women receiving placebo, 12 percent in women receiving estrogen therapy alone, 61 percent in women receiving estrogen–progestin therapy, and 2 percent in women receiving hormones prescribed by their physicians that were not part of the PEPI regimen and could not be categorized as unopposed estrogen, cyclical combined therapy, or continuous combined therapy.
The biopsy results were abnormal in 31 examinations (5 percent), and endometrial thickness was more than 4 mm in 307 examinations (53 percent). Table 1Table 1
Endometrial Thickness and Biopsy Findings in Postmenopausal Women. shows the relation between the category of endometrial thickness and the histopathological diagnosis. The fraction of technically unsatisfactory ultrasonographic examinations increased slightly with increasing endometrial thickness (P for trend = 0.10). Table 2Table 2
Mean Endometrial Thickness and Distribution of Biopsy Findings According to Treatment Group. shows the distributions of endometrial thickness and biopsy results according to the treatment assignment. The women receiving unopposed estrogen had the highest mean endometrial thickness and the highest rate of abnormal biopsy results; 34 percent of the biopsies in this group had abnormal results, as compared with 2 percent or less in each of the other groups.Figure 2Figure 2
Mean (±SD) Endometrial Thickness According to Biopsy Findings. shows endometrial thickness according to the histopathological diagnosis. Of the 31 biopsies with abnormal findings, 20 showed simple cystic hyperplasia and 11 showed serious abnormalities. The highest mean value for endometrial thickness was associated with complex hyperplasia (in eight cases); the values were lower in the two cases of atypical hyperplasia (7 and 12 mm) and the one case of adenocarcinoma (5 mm). Ultrasonography was unsatisfactory in three of the cases of serious abnormalities detected by biopsy.Sensitivity, Specificity, and Positive and Negative Predictive Values
When all abnormal histopathological findings were considered, the 5-mm threshold for abnormal endometrial thickness had a sensitivity of 90 percent, a specificity of 48 percent, a positive predictive value of 9 percent, and a negative predictive value of 99 percent for detecting endometrial disease (Table 3Table 3
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Positive and Negative Predictive Values of an Endometrial Thickness of 5 mm or More for Detecting Endometrial Disease.). When only seriously abnormal histopathological findings were considered, the sensitivity was 91 percent, but the positive predictive value decreased to 3 percent. In an analysis that included all abnormal histopathological findings but excluded technically unsatisfactory ultrasonographic examinations (on the assumption that the evaluation was not complete after an unsatisfactory examination), the sensitivity of the 5-mm threshold for abnormal endometrial thickness decreased to 81 percent, the positive predictive value decreased to 8 percent, and the negative predictive value decreased to 95 percent. For seriously abnormal histopathological findings, the corresponding values were 73, 3, and 95 percent.Twenty-three of the 31 biopsies with abnormal findings were in women receiving unopposed estrogen. When all abnormal histopathological findings were included in the analysis, the sensitivity and the positive predictive value were higher in the women receiving unopposed estrogen (96 and 38 percent, respectively) than in the full cohort. This difference was largely due to the greater likelihood of simple hyperplasia in the group receiving unopposed estrogen. The specificity of ultrasonography for detecting disease in this group was much lower (10 percent). When simple hyperplasia was excluded, the positive predictive value for an endometrial thickness of 5 mm or more was also low (12 percent) in these high-risk women. When simple cystic hyperplasia was included but technically unsatisfactory examinations were excluded, the sensitivity was 83 percent, and the positive predictive value was 33 percent. These values fell to 63 and 8 percent, respectively, for seriously abnormal histopathological findings. There were only four ultrasonograms showing an endometrial thickness of less than 5 mm in the group of women taking unopposed estrogen, and since none of the four were associated with abnormal biopsy results, the negative predictive value was 100 percent.
The more liberal threshold for abnormal endometrial thickness (9 mm or more) was tested in women who received estrogen alone or cyclical estrogen plus progesterone. In the group of women receiving unopposed estrogen, an increase in the threshold from 5 to 9 mm resulted in an increase in the positive predictive value for detecting seriously abnormal histopathological findings, from 12 to 15 percent for all examinations and from 8 to 12 percent for satisfactory examinations. In women receiving combined cyclical treatment, the positive predictive value for an endometrial thickness of 9 mm or more was 2 percent for both categories of examinations.
Figure 3Figure 3
Receiver-Operator-Characteristic Curves for the Sensitivity and Specificity of Transvaginal Ultrasonography in Detecting Abnormal Biopsy Findings in the Women Taking Estrogen Alone and in All the Women. shows the receiver-operator-characteristic curves for any abnormal histopathological finding and for seriously abnormal findings in all women and in the women given estrogen alone.Discussion
This study was designed to compare transvaginal ultrasonography with endometrial biopsy as a screening procedure for endometrial disease in largely asymptomatic postmenopausal women receiving estrogen or estrogen–progesterone therapy. The inclusion of women receiving placebo provided the opportunity to compare these approaches in untreated women as well. We found that ultrasonography was useful for detecting endometrial hyperplasia. But hyperplasia was not synonymous with seriously abnormal histopathological findings, and the highest values for endometrial thickness were not associated with the most serious diagnoses. This disjunction was not attributable to the association between hyperplasia and unopposed-estrogen therapy, since the most serious disease, an adenocarcinoma, was in a woman in the placebo group. In another study of transvaginal ultrasonography, 300 asymptomatic postmenopausal women had no hyperplasia or cancer despite increased endometrial thickness, especially in heavier women.23 The receiver-operator-characteristic curves in our study show that ultrasonography was better for detecting hyperplasia than serious abnormalities. As in other studies, for women receiving unopposed-estrogen therapy, the 9-mm threshold was superior to the 5-mm threshold. For the entire cohort, the choice between 5 and 9 mm reflects a compromise between sensitivity and specificity.
In a study of endometrial biopsies in 496 asymptomatic postmenopausal women, the prevalence rate for abnormal findings was 2 percent.24 In a study of biopsies in 801 premenopausal and postmenopausal women, the prevalence of serious endometrial disease was 6 percent.25 The 5 percent rate of disease in our study is similar to the rates in the other two studies. Although our study included one of the two women with adenocarcinoma in the overall PEPI study, about two thirds of the cases of endometrial disease detected in the larger study were diagnosed during the first half of the trial, before the start of the ultrasonography protocol. If the true prevalence of endometrial disease in asymptomatic women is higher, our estimates of positive predictive values may be low.
The negative predictive value for ultrasonography was high (99 percent) when the threshold for endometrial thickness was 5 mm. This high negative predictive value is not a justification for the use of ultrasonography in screening, since 53 percent of the women with normal biopsies had an endometrial thickness of at least 5 mm. But these results suggest that there is little additional information to be gained from an endometrial biopsy after an ultrasonographic examination has shown an endometrial thickness of less than 5 mm.
On the basis of an endometrial thickness of 5 mm or more, biopsies would have been indicated after more than half the ultrasonography examinations, but less than 10 percent of these examinations would have revealed serious endometrial disease. Because of the high false positive rate, ultrasonography is not a practical screening procedure in asymptomatic women, regardless of whether they are receiving estrogen-replacement therapy. Since the cost of transvaginal ultrasonography is similar to that of an endometrial biopsy, ultrasonography would offer no economic advantage, and half the women examined ultrasonographically would require a biopsy as a second procedure, which would erase the comfort-related benefit of the less invasive procedure and potentially cause anxiety about the possibility of disease.
As a procedure for monitoring the safety of unopposed-estrogen therapy, transvaginal ultrasonography was disappointing, with a low positive predictive value for detecting serious disease. Because of the high incidence of simple hyperplasia associated with increased endometrial thickness in women taking unopposed estrogen, a large fraction of such women would have to undergo a biopsy after ultrasonography.
Since bleeding is a cardinal symptom of endometrial disease, the prevalence of seriously abnormal histopathological findings was probably higher in the studies of women with bleeding than in the women we studied, most of whom were asymptomatic. Since the positive predictive value is influenced by the prevalence of disease, this disparity explains in part the contrast between our results and those of previous studies examining the usefulness of endometrial ultrasonography.
Supported by grants (U01-HL40154, U01-HL40185, U01-HL40195, U01-HL40205, U01-HL40207, U01-HL40231, U01-HL40232, and U01-HL40273) from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the National Institute on Aging. Study medications were provided by Wyeth–Ayerst Laboratories, Philadelphia (Premarin), the Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Mich. (Provera), and Schering–Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, N.J. (micronized progesterone).
Source Information
From the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (R.D.L.); the Department of Public Health Sciences, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C. (J.J.P., M.A.E.); the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif. (K.A.O.); the College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City (S.R.J.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio (J.F.T.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, D.C. (V.M.B.); the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md. (M.J.M.); and the Pathology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (R.E.S.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Langer at the University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., MC 0978, La Jolla, CA 92093-0978.
Other participating investigators and centers are listed in the Appendix.
Appendix
The following institutions and investigators participated in the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions trial: George Washington University, Washington, D.C. — V.T. Miller and J. LaRosa; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore — T. Bush and H. Zacur; Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif. — P.D. Wood and M.L. Stefanick; University of California, Los Angeles — H.L. Judd and G. Greendale; University of California, San Diego, La Jolla — E. Barrett-Connor; University of Iowa, Iowa City — H.G. Schrott; University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio — C. Pauerstein; Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C. (coordinating center) — H.B. Wells, P. Hogan, and C. Wasilauskas; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute — I.L. Mebane-Sims; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development — J. Kelaghan; National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases — J. McGowan; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases — J. Fradkin; and National Institute on Aging — S. Sherman.
- References
References
1
Nasri MN ,Coast GJ . Correlation of ultrasound findings and endometrial histopathology in postmenopausal women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:1333-1338
CrossRef | Medline2
Osmers R ,Volksen M ,Rath W ,Kuhn W . Vaginosonographic detection of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1990;32:35-37
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Gordon AN ,Fleischer AC ,Dudley BS , et al. Preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion of endometrial adenocarcinoma by sonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Gynecol Oncol 1989;34:175-179
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Gordon AN ,Fleischer AC ,Reed GW . Depth of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: preoperative assessment by transvaginal ultrasonography. Gynecol Oncol 1990;39:321-327
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Requard CK ,Wicks JD ,Mettler FA Jr . Ultrasonography in the staging of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Radiology 1981;140:781-785
Web of Science | Medline6
Breckenridge JW ,Kurtz AB ,Ritchie WG ,Macht EL Jr . Postmenopausal uterine fluid collection: indicator of carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982;139:529-534
Web of Science | Medline7
Chambers CB ,Unis JS . Ultrasonographic evidence of uterine malignancy in the postmenopausal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;154:1194-1199
Web of Science | Medline8
Fleischer AC ,Gordon AN ,Entman SS ,Kepple DM . Transvaginal scanning of the endometrium. J Clin Ultrasound 1990;18:337-349
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Tessler FN ,Schiller VL ,Perrella RR ,Sutherland ML ,Grant EG . Transabdominal versus endovaginal pelvic sonography: prospective study. Radiology 1989;170:553-556
Web of Science | Medline10
Schurz B ,Metka M ,Heytmanek G ,Wimmer-Greinecker G ,Reinold E . Sonographic changes in the endometrium of climacteric women during hormonal treatment. Maturitas 1988;9:367-374
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Rose PG . Endometrial carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1996;335:640-649
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline12
The Writing Group for the PEPI Trial
CrossRef | Web of Science13
The Writing Group for the PEPI Trial
CrossRef | Web of Science14
Osmers R ,Bergholz M ,Kuhn W . Vaginal sonographic visualisation of a cervical carcinoma. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1989;28:283-285
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Smith P ,Bakos O ,Heimer G ,Ulmsten U . Transvaginal ultrasound for identifying endometrial abnormality. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991;70:591-594
CrossRef | Medline16
Varner RE ,Sparks JM ,Cameron CD ,Roberts LL ,Soong SJ . Transvaginal sonography of the endometrium in postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:195-199
Web of Science | Medline17
Granberg S ,Wikland M ,Karlsson B ,Norstrom A ,Friberg LG . Endometrial thickness as measured by endovaginal ultrasonography for identifying endometrial abnormality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;164:47-52
Web of Science | Medline18
Lin MC ,Gosink BB ,Wolf SI , et al. Endometrial thickness after menopause: effect of hormone replacement. Radiology 1991;180:427-432
Web of Science | Medline19
Malpani A ,Singer J ,Wolverson MK ,Merenda G . Endometrial hyperplasia: value of endometrial thickness in ultrasonographic diagnosis and clinical significance. J Clin Ultrasound 1990;18:173-177
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods. 7th ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1980:206-7.
21
SAS Institute Inc. SAS/GRAPH software: reference, version 6, vol. 1. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, 1990.
22
Miller VT ,Byington RL ,Espeland MA , et al. Baseline characteristics of the PEPI participants. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:54S-65S
CrossRef | Medline23
Andolf E ,Dahlander K ,Aspenberg P . Ultrasonic thickness of the endometrium correlated to body weight in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:936-940
Web of Science | Medline24
Gronroos M ,Salmi TA ,Vuento MH , et al. Mass screening for endometrial cancer directed in risk groups of patients with diabetes and patients with hypertension. Cancer 1993;71:1279-1282
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Archer DF ,McIntyre-Seltman K ,Wilborn WW Jr , et al. Endometrial morphology in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:317-320
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (74)
Citing Articles
1
Ghada M. Mansour, Amr El-Shalakany. (2011) Endometrial/uterine corporeal volume ratio (EV/UCV) as predictor of malignancy in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
CrossRef2
J. Naftalin, N. Nunes, W. Hoo, R. Arora, D. Jurkovic. (2011) Endometrial cancer and ultrasound: why measuring endometrial thickness is sometimes not enough. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecologyn/a-n/a
CrossRef3
Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Stefano Bettocchi, Marialuigia Spinelli, Maurizio Guida, Luigi Nappi, Stefano Angioni, Loredana Maria Sosa Fernandez, Carmine Nappi. (2010) Review of New Office-Based Hysteroscopic Procedures 2003–2009. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 17:4, 436-448
CrossRef4
Fabrice Lécuru, Cyrille Huchon, Ulrike Metzger, Anne Sophie Bats, Marie Aude Le Frère Belda, Sylviane Olschwang, Pierre Laurent Puig. (2010) Contribution of Ultrasonography to Endometrial Cancer Screening in Patients With Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer/Lynch Syndrome. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 20:4, 583-587
CrossRef5
Darcy J. Wolfman, Sandra J. Allison. (2010) Applications of Ultrasound in Gynecologic Oncology. Ultrasound Clinics 5:2, 289-298
CrossRef6
A. Yasemin Karageyim Karsidag, Esra Esim Buyukbayrak, Bulent Kars, Orhan Unal, M. Cem Turan. (2010) Transvaginal sonography, sonohysterography, and hysteroscopy for investigation of focal intrauterine lesions in women with recurrent postmenopausal bleeding after dilatation & curettage. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 281:4, 637-643
CrossRef7
A. Schneider. (2009) Epidemiologie des Endometriumkarzinoms. Der Onkologe 15:9, 844-855
CrossRef8
N. Dietz, M. Rehn, J. Dietl. (2009) Bildgebende Diagnostik und präoperatives Staging des Endometriumkarzinoms. Der Onkologe 15:9, 856-864
CrossRef9
James V. Lacey, Victoria M. Chia. (2009) Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of progression to carcinoma. Maturitas 63:1, 39-44
CrossRef10
Dong Hoon Shin, Kyung Un Choi, Dong Soo Suh, Man Soo Yoon, Jee Yeon Kim, Hyun Jeong Kang. (2009) Implication of preoperative cervical cytology in endometrial carcinoma. Basic and Applied Pathology 2:1, 30-34
CrossRef11
Martha Hickey, Sweta Agarwal. (2009) Bleeding with menopausal hormone therapy. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 23:1, 141-149
CrossRef12
Robert D. Langer. 2008. Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Intervention Trial (PEPI). .
CrossRef13
Alex J Polotsky, Nanette Santoro. 2008. Uterine disease in midlife and beyond: the menopausal transition and postmenopause. , 785-796.
CrossRef14
Joel I. Sorosky. (2008) Endometrial Cancer. Obstetrics & Gynecology 111:2, Part 1, 436-447
CrossRef15
J. N. Bakkum-Gamez, J. Gonzalez-Bosquet, N. N. Laack, A. Mariani, S. C. Dowdy. (2008) Current Issues in the Management of Endometrial Cancer. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 83:1, 97-112
CrossRef16
G.M. Mansour, I.K.I. El-Lamie, M.A. El-Kady, S.F. El-Mekkawi, M. Laban, A.I. Abou-Gabal. (2007) Endometrial volume as predictor of malignancy in women with postmenopausal bleeding. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 99:3, 206-210
CrossRef17
E. Kondo, T. Tabata, Y. Koduka, K. Nishiura, K. Tanida, T. Okugawa, N. Sagawa. (2007) What is the best method of detecting endometrial cancer in outpatients?-endometrial sampling, suction curettage, endometrial cytology. Cytopathology 0:0, 071018063636006-???
CrossRef18
Fabrice Lécuru, Ulrike Metzger, Catherine Scarabin, Marie Aude Le Frère Belda, Sylviane Olschwang, Pierre Laurent Puig. (2007) Hysteroscopic findings in women at risk of HNPCC. Results of a prospective observational study. Familial Cancer 6:3, 295-299
CrossRef19
Satoru Kikuchi, Kazufumi Honda, Yasushi Handa, Hidenori Kato, Kohki Yamashita, Tomoko Umaki, Miki Shitashige, Masaya Ono, Akihiko Tsuchida, Tatsuya Aoki, Setsuo Hirohashi, Tesshi Yamada. (2007) Serum albumin-associated peptides of patients with uterine endometrial cancer. Cancer Science 98:6, 822-829
CrossRef20
D. Wildemeersch, K. Pylyser, N. De Wever, P. Pauwels, W. Tjalma. (2007) Endometrial safety after 5 years of continuous combined transdermal estrogen and intrauterine levonorgestrel delivery for postmenopausal hormone substitution. Maturitas 57:2, 205-209
CrossRef21
Yoav Peled, Tamar Perri, Yosef Pardo, Boris Kaplan. (2007) Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system as an adjunct to estrogen for the treatment of menopausal symptoms-a review. Menopause 14:3, 550-554
CrossRef22
Sara B. Fazio, Amy N. Ship. (2007) Abnormal Uterine Bleeding. Southern Medical Journal 100:4, 376-382
CrossRef23
Selvan Pather, Michael O’Leary, Jonathan Carter. (2007) Endometrial cancer and its management. Women's Health 3:1, 45-54
CrossRef24
Oguz Akin, Svetlana Mironov, Neeta Pandit-Taskar, Lucy E. Hann. (2007) Imaging of Uterine Cancer. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:1, 167-182
CrossRef25
John Collins. (2006) Hormones and Breast Cancer. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108:6, 1352-1353
CrossRef26
David L. Greenspan, Marina Cardillo, Diane D. Davey, Debra S. Heller, Ann T. Moriarty. (2006) Endometrial Cells in Cervical Cytology: Review of Cytological Features and Clinical Assessment. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease 10:2, 111-122
CrossRef27
Jing Wang, Cecilia Wieslander, Gail Hansen, Ilana Cass, Steven Vasilev, Christine H. Holschneider. (2006) Thin endometrial echo complex on ultrasound does not reliably exclude type 2 endometrial cancers. Gynecologic Oncology 101:1, 120-125
CrossRef28
Y SONODA, R BARAKAT. (2006) Screening and the prevention of gynecologic cancer: Endometrial cancer. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 20:2, 363-377
CrossRef29
Jonathan Carter, Selvan Pather. (2006) An overview of uterine cancer and its management. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 6:1, 33-41
CrossRef30
M. Gorostidi, B. Rivero, E. Ecenarro, L. Barinagarrementeria, M. García. (2005) Controversias en la prevención de patología endometrial en mujeres en tratamiento con tamoxifeno. Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología 48:11, 521-528
CrossRef31
Frederic Amant, Philippe Moerman, Patrick Neven, Dirk Timmerman, Erik Van Limbergen, Ignace Vergote. (2005) Endometrial cancer. The Lancet 366:9484, 491-505
CrossRef32
Dirk Wildemeersch, Dirk Janssens, Steven Weyers. (2005) Continuous combined parenteral estrogen substitution and intrauterine progestogen delivery: the ideal HST combination?. Maturitas 51:2, 207-214
CrossRef33
Akas Jain, Nanette Santoro. (2005) Endocrine Mechanisms and Management for Abnormal Bleeding Due to Perimenopausal Changes. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 48:2, 295-311
CrossRef34
T. Tsalikis, L. Zepiridis, M. Zafrakas, K. Dinas, J. Bontis. (2005) Endometrial lesions causing uterine bleeding in postmenopausal women receiving raloxifene. Maturitas 51:2, 215-218
CrossRef35
N. Susumu, D. Aoki, T. Noda, Y. Nagashima, T. Hirao, Y. Tamada, K. Banno, A. Suzuki, N. Suzuki, H. Tsuda, J. Inazawa, S. Nozawa. (2005) Diagnostic clinical application of two-color fluorescence in situ hybridization that detects chromosome 1 and 17 alterations to direct touch smear and liquid-based thin-layer cytologic preparations of endometrial cancers. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 15:1, 70-80
CrossRef36
Steven R. Goldstein. (2005) The case for less-than-monthly progestogen in women on HT: is transvaginal ultrasound the key?. Menopause 12:1, 110-113
CrossRef37
Tapash K. Saha, Saad A.K.S. Amer, Judith Biss, Hemlata Thakare, Susan Williams, Tom Farrell, John Calvert. (2004) The validity of transvaginal ultrasound measurement of endometrial thickness: a comparison of ultrasound measurement with direct anatomical measurement. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 111:12, 1419-1424
CrossRef38
Steven R. Goldstein. (2004) The endometrial echo revisited: Have we created a monster?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 191:4, 1092-1096
CrossRef39
M Gambacciani, P Monteleone, M Ciaponi, A Sacco, A.R Genazzani. (2004) Clinical usefulness of endometrial screening by ultrasound in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Maturitas 48:4, 421-424
CrossRef40
Umberto Omodei, Enrico Ferrazzi, Francesca Ramazzotto, Angela Becorpi, Eva Grimaldi, Gianfranco Scarselli, Daniele Spagnolo, Luigi Spagnolo, Walter Torri. (2004) Endometrial evaluation with transvaginal ultrasound during hormone therapy: a prospective multicenter study. Fertility and Sterility 81:6, 1632-1637
CrossRef41
Ben E. Montgomery, Gary S. Daum, Charles J. Dunton. (2004) Endometrial Hyperplasia: A Review. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 59:5, 368-378
CrossRef42
M. A. Guven, T. Bese, F. Demirkiran. (2004) Comparison of hydrosonography and transvaginal ultrasonography in the detection of intracavitary pathologies in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 14:1, 57-63
CrossRef43
Steven R. Lindheim, Natalie Adsuar, David M. Kushner, Elizabeth A. Pritts, David L. Olive. (2003) Sonohysterography:. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 58:11, 770-784
CrossRef44
Fleur E.M Rijcken, Marian J.E Mourits, Jan H Kleibeuker, Harry Hollema, Ate G.J van der Zee. (2003) Gynecologic screening in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gynecologic Oncology 91:1, 74-80
CrossRef45
D. Timmerman, J. Verguts, M. L. Konstantinovic, P. Moerman, D. Van Schoubroeck, J. Deprest, S. Van Huffel. (2003) The pedicle artery sign based on sonography with color Doppler imaging can replace second-stage tests in women with abnormal vaginal bleeding. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 22:2, 166-171
CrossRef46
(2003) Role of progestogen in hormone therapy for postmenopausal women: position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause 10:2, 113-132
CrossRef47
Aljosa Mandic, Tamara Vujkov. (2003) Endometrial cancer: Diagnostic methods in postmenopausal vaginal bleeding. Archive of oncology 11:2, 97-101
CrossRef48
Giorgio Giorda, Diana Crivellari, Andrea Veronesi, Tiziana Perin, Elio Campagnutta, Antonino Carbone, Carlo Scarabelli. (2002) Comparison of ultrasonography, hysteroscopy, and biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial lesions in postmenopausal tamoxifen-treated patients. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 81:10, 975-980
CrossRef49
S Granberg, K Eurenius, R Lindgren, L Wilhelmsson. (2002) The effects of oral estriol on the endometrium in postmenopausal women. Maturitas 42:2, 149-156
CrossRef50
Margit Dueholm, Erik Lundorf, Frede Olesen. (2002) Imaging Techniques for Evaluation of the Uterine Cavity and Endometrium in Premenopausal Patients Before Minimally Invasive Surgery. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 57:6, 389-403
CrossRef51
Toon Van Gorp, Patrick Neven. (2002) Endometrial safety of hormone replacement therapy: review of literature. Maturitas 42:2, 93-104
CrossRef52
Caroline Reinhold, Ida Khalili. (2002) Postmenopausal bleeding: value of imaging. Radiologic Clinics of North America 40:3, 527-562
CrossRef53
Wen-Yi Shau, Ching-Chang Hsieh, T'sang-T'ang Hsieh, Tai-Ho Hung, Kuo-En Huang. (2002) Factors associated with endometrial bleeding in continuous hormone replacement therapy. Menopause 9:3, 188-194
CrossRef54
Isis Dove-Edwin, Dominique Boks, Sheila Goff, Gemma G. Kenter, Robert Carpenter, Hans F. A. Vasen, Huw J. W. Thomas. (2002) The outcome of endometrial carcinoma surveillance by ultrasound scan in women at risk of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma and familial colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 94:6, 1708-1712
CrossRef55
Makoto Emoto, Riko Tamura, Kyoko Shirota, Toru Hachisuga, Tatsuhiko Kawarabayashi. (2002) Clinical usefulness of color doppler ultrasound in patients with endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma. Cancer 94:3, 700-706
CrossRef56
STEVEN R. GOLDSTEIN. (2001) The Effect of SERMs on the Endometrium. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 949:1, 237-242
CrossRef57
E HERNANDEZ. (2001) ENDOMETRIAL ADENOCARCINOMAA Primer for the Generalist. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 28:4, 743-757
CrossRef58
Serge Rozenberg, Samuel Auvertin, Hamphrey Ham. (2001) A survey of physicians’ attitude towards women with postmenopausal bleeding. Maturitas 39:3, 189-193
CrossRef59
Kika M. Dudiak. (2001) Hysterosonography: A Key to What Is Inside the Uterus. Ultrasound Quarterly 17:2, 73-86
CrossRef60
P NEVEN, I VERGOTE. (2001) Tamoxifen, screening and new oestrogen receptor modulators. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 15:3, 365-380
CrossRef61
Michelle D. Althuis, Mary Sexton, Patricia Langenberg, Trudy L. Bush, Katherine Tkaczuk, Jay Magaziner, Lynn Khoo. (2000) Surveillance for uterine abnormalities in tamoxifen-treated breast carcinoma survivors. Cancer 89:4, 800-810
CrossRef62
Patrick Lynch. (2000) If aggressive surveillance in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer is now state of the art, are there any challenges left?. Gastroenterology 118:5, 969-971
CrossRef63
Patrick Neven, Hilde Vernaeve. (2000) Guidelines for Monitoring Patients Taking Tamoxifen Treatment. Drug Safety 22:1, 1-11
CrossRef64
Izumi Imaoka, Kazuro Sugimura, Takayuki Masui, Yasuo Takehara, Katsutoshi Ichijo, Masaaki Naito. (1999) Abnormal uterine cavity: differential diagnosis with MR imaging. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 17:10, 1445-1455
CrossRef65
Sukumar Barik, John Tidy. (1999) Screening for endometrial cancer in asymptomatic postmenopausal women with conventional and colour Doppler sonography. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 106:11, 1229-1229
CrossRef66
C. P. Spencer, M. I. Whitehead. (1999) Endometrial assessment re-visited. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 106:7, 623-632
CrossRef67
Maarit H. Vuento, Juha I. Makinen, Thula A. Salmi. (1999) Authors' Reply. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 106:6, 613-613
CrossRef68
Chris Spencer. (1999) Screening for endometrial cancer in asymptomatic postmenopausal women with conventional and colour Doppler sonography. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 106:6, 612-613
CrossRef69
R. Lindgren, L.-A. Mattsson, K. Andersson, A. Lagrelius, K. Sandin, K. Karlsson, B. Risberg. (1999) Transvaginal ultrasonography and endometrial histology in peri- and postmenopausal women on hormone replacement therapy. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 106:5, 421-426
CrossRef70
Gail A Greendale, Nancy P Lee, Edga R Arriola. (1999) The menopause. The Lancet 353:9152, 571-580
CrossRef71
S. L. Silfen, A. V. Ciaccia, H. U. Bryant. (1999) Selective estrogen receptor modulators: tissue selectivity and differential uterine effects. Climacteric 2:4, 268-283
CrossRef72
David F. Archer, Rogerio A. Lobo, Harriette F. Land, James H. Pickar. (1999) A Comparative Study of Transvaginal Uterine Ultrasound and Endometrial Biopsy for Evaluating the Endometrium of Postmenopausal Women Taking Hormone Replacement Therapy. Menopause 6:3, 201-208
CrossRef73
Patrick Neven, Ignace Vergote. (1998) Should tamoxifen users be screened for endometrial lesions?. The Lancet 351:9097, 155-157
CrossRef74
Fleischer, Arthur C., . (1997) Optimizing the Accuracy of Transvaginal Ultrasonography of the Endometrium. New England Journal of Medicine 337:25, 1839-1840
Full Text
