Prospective validation of two mathematical models to calculate the risk of endometrial malignancy in patients with postmenopausal bleeding and sonographic endometrial thickness ≥4.5 mm

IETA Ultrasonic Features Combined with GI-RADS Classification System and Tumor Biomarkers for Surveillance of Endometrial Carcinoma: An Innovative Study

Objectives: We were the first to combine IETA ultrasonic features with GI-RADS and tumor biomarkers for the surveillance of endometrial carcinoma. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of single IETA ultrasonography GI-RADS classification and combined tumor biomarkers in differentiating benign and malignant lesions in the uterine cavity and endometrium. Methods: A total of 497 patients with intrauterine and endometrial lesions who had been treated surgically between January 2017 and December 2021 were enrolled; all of them had undergone ultrasound examinations before surgery. We analyzed the correlation between the terms of ultrasonic signs of the uterine cavity and endometrial lesions defined by the expert consensus of IETA and the benign and malignant lesions and then classified these ultrasonic signs by GI-RADS. In addition, the tumor biomarkers CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9 and HE4 were combined by adjusting the classification. The results of the comprehensive analysis were compared with pathological results to analyze their diagnostic efficacy. Results: (1) The statistic analysis confirmed that there were seven independent predictors of malignant lesions, including thickened endometrium (premenopause ≥ 18.5 mm, postmenopause ≥ 15.5 mm), non-uniform endometrial echogenicity (heterogeneous with irregular cysts), endometrial midline appearance (not defined), the endometrial-myometrial junction (interrupted or not defined), intracavitary fluid (ground glass or "mixed" echogenicity), color score (3~4 points) and vascular pattern (focal origin multiple vessels or multifocal origin multiple vessels). (2) In traditional ultrasound GI-RADS (U-T-GI-RADS), if category 4a was taken as the cut-off value of benign and malignant, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy were 97.2%, 65.2%, 44.0%, 98.8% and 72.2%, respectively, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.812. If 4b was taken as the cut-off value, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV diagnostic accuracy and AUC were 88.1%, 92.0%, 75.6%, 96.5% and 91.2%, 0.900, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV diagnostic accuracy and AUC were 75.2%, 98.5%, 93.2%, 93.4%, 93.4% and 0.868, respectively, when taking category 5 as the cutoff point. In modified ultrasound GI-RADS (U-M-GI-RADS), if 4a was taken as the cut-off value, The diagnostic efficacy was the same as U-T-GI-RADS. If 4b was taken as the cut-off value, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, diagnostic accuracy and AUC were 88.1%, 92.3%, 76.2%, 96.5%, 91.3% and 0.902, respectively. If 4c was taken as the cutoff point, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV diagnostic accuracy and AUC were 75.2%, 98.7%, 94.3%, 93.4%, 93.6% and 0.870, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV diagnostic accuracy and AUC were 66.1%, 99.7%, 98.6%, 91.3%, 92.4% and 0.829, respectively, if taking category 5 as the cutoff point. (3) In the comprehensive diagnostic method of U-T-GI-RADS combined tumor biomarkers results, the AUC of class 4a, 4b and 5 as the cutoff value was 0.877, 0.888 and 0.738, respectively. The AUC of class 4a, 4b, 4c and 5 as the cutoff value in the comprehensive diagnostic method of U-M-GI-RADS combined tumor biomarkers results was 0.877, 0.888, 0.851 and 0.725, respectively. There was no significant difference in diagnostic efficiency between the two comprehensive diagnostic methods. Conclusions: In this study, no matter which diagnostic method was used, the best cutoff value for predicting malignant EC was ≥GI-RADS 4b. The GI-RADS classification had good performance in discriminating EC. The tumor biomarkers, CA125, CA19-9, CA15-3 and HE4, could improve the diagnostic efficacy for preoperative endometrial carcinoma assessment.

Combination IETA Ultrasonographic Characteristics Simple Scoring Method With Tumor Biomarkers Effectively Improves the Differentiation Ability of Benign and Malignant Lesions in Endometrium and Uterine Cavity

Objectives

To evaluate International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) ultrasonographic characteristics simple scoring method and tumor biomarkers for the diagnosis of uterine cavity and endometrial lesions.

Methods

We classified and scored the normalized description of IETA ultrasonic characteristics, according to IETA expert consensus literature, previous IETA-related research articles, and the previous research experience of this project group. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the ultrasound images of 594 patients enrolled from January 2017 to June 2020, scored them item by item, and finally calculated the total score of each case. Meanwhile, we combined the results of seven tumor biomarkers. The objective was to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, coincidence rate, and the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of IETA ultrasonographic characteristics simple scoring method and tumor biomarkers for benign and malignant uterine cavity or endometrial lesions. The diagnostic efficiency between the combined method and the single method was compared.

Results

A total of 594 cases were confirmed by postoperative pathology or surgery records, including 475 benign lesions and 119 malignant lesions. In the simple ultrasound scoring method, the average score of benign lesions was 3.879 ± 1.279 and that of malignant lesions was 9.676 ± 4.491. If ≥6.5 points was taken as the cutoff value for the judgment of malignant lesions, the sensitivity, specificity, coincidence rate, and the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were 76.5%, 96.0%, 92.1%, and 0.935, respectively. The difference in tumor antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) and human epididymal protein 4 (HE4) between benign and malignant lesions was statistically significant (all p ≤ 0.01). The other five tumor biomarkers (CA125, CA15-3, SCC-Ag, AFP, and CEA) showed no statistically significant difference in benign and malignant lesions. If the value of CA19-9 ≥13.96 U/ml was taken as cutoff value, the sensitivity, specificity, and coincidence rate of the diagnosis of endometrial benign and malignant lesions were 54.8%, 74.7%, and 70.7%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.620. If the value of HE4 ≥ 39.075 pmol/L was taken as cutoff point, the sensitivity, specificity, coincidence rate, and AUC were 77.4%, 67.9%, 69.8%, and 0.796, respectively. The sensitivity was increased to 97.6% and the AUC was 0.939 when IETA ultrasound characteristics simple scoring method combined CA19-9 and HE4 in parallel test.

Conclusions

In IETA ultrasound characteristics simple scoring method, with ≥6.5 points as the cutoff value, it could quickly and accurately assess the benign and malignant in uterine cavity and endometrial lesions, with high diagnostic value. The diagnostic efficacy of seven tumor biomarkers was all mediocre. Combining with these two methods, the comprehensive diagnosis could improve sensitivity and accuracy and reduce the risk of missed diagnosis.

Identification of endometrial cancers and atypical hyperplasia: Development and validation of a simplified system for ultrasound scoring of endometrial pattern

OBJECTIVES

To derive and validate a practical scoring system for identification of endometrial cancer (EC) or atypical hyperplasia (AH) using transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) and gel infusion sonography (GIS) in women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB).

STUDY DESIGN

Endometrial pattern was correlated with endometrial pathology in consecutive women with PMB in both a derivation study (N = 164) and a validation study (N = 711). Logistic regression was used to derive and validate two scoring systems (A and B) for prediction of EC/AH: scoring system A was Doppler score + interrupted endo-myometrial junction (IEJ) (2 points); and scoring system B was Doppler score + IEJ (1 point) + Irregular Endometrial Outline (IESO) by GIS (1 point); the Doppler score was based on the presence of more than one single or double vessel (1 point) + multiple vessels (1 point) + large vessels (1 point).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Diagnostic performance and calibration curves for identification of EC/AH.

RESULTS

Both scoring systems had good observer agreement.

VALIDATION DATA

Scoring was most effective with endometrial thickness (ET) ≥ 8 mm. Both scoring systems were well calibrated and performed satisfactorily in women with ET ≥ 8 mm. The sensitivity and specificity of a score of ≥ 2 points in system A were 92% and 84%; the respective values were 89% and 88% in system B.

CONCLUSIONS

Scoring was highly efficient in identifying EC/AH. Four risk groups of EC/AH may guide the management of women with PMB: very low (ET < 4 mm), low (ET 4-7.9 mm), intermediate (ET ≥ 8 mm and score < 2 points) and high risk (ET ≥ 8 mm and score ≥ 2 points).

International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) terminology in women with postmenopausal bleeding and sonographic endometrial thickness ≥ 4.5 mm: agreement and reliability study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate intra- and interrater agreement and reliability with regard to describing ultrasound images of the endometrium using the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) terminology.

METHODS

Four expert and four non-expert raters assessed videoclips of transvaginal ultrasound examinations of the endometrium obtained from 99 women with postmenopausal bleeding and sonographic endometrial thickness ≥ 4.5 mm but without fluid in the uterine cavity. The following features were rated: endometrial echogenicity, endometrial midline, bright edge, endometrial-myometrial junction, color score, vascular pattern, irregularly branching vessels and color splashes. The color content of the endometrial scan was estimated using a visual analog scale graded from 0 to 100. To estimate intrarater agreement and reliability, the same videoclips were assessed twice with a minimum of 2 months' interval. The raters were blinded to their own results and to those of the other raters.

RESULTS

Interrater differences in the described prevalence of most IETA variables were substantial, and some variable categories were observed rarely. Specific agreement was poor for variables with many categories. For binary variables, specific agreement was better for absence than for presence of a category. For variables with more than two outcome categories, specific agreement for expert and non-expert raters was best for not-defined endometrial midline (93% and 96%), regular endometrial-myometrial junction (72% and 70%) and three-layer endometrial pattern (67% and 56%). The grayscale ultrasound variable with the best reliability was uniform vs non-uniform echogenicity (multirater kappa (κ), 0.55 for expert and 0.52 for non-expert raters), and the variables with the lowest reliability were appearance of the endometrial-myometrial junction (κ, 0.25 and 0.16) and the nine-category endometrial echogenicity variable (κ, 0.29 and 0.28). The most reliable color Doppler variable was color score (mean weighted κ, 0.77 and 0.69). Intra- and interrater agreement and reliability were similar for experts and non-experts.

CONCLUSIONS

Inter- and intrarater agreement and reliability when using IETA terminology were limited. This may have implications when assessing the association between a particular ultrasound feature and a specific histological diagnosis, because lack of reproducibility reduces the reliability of the association between a feature and the outcome. Future studies should investigate whether using fewer categories of variable or offering practical training could improve agreement and reliability. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Current strategies in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer

PURPOSE

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy in developed countries. There are no uniform recommendations for endometrial cancer screening in the general population. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that the primary physician profoundly understands, and is familiar with the methods for prevention and early detection of endometrial cancer. The aim of this review is to provide the primary physician with a toolbox to reach these goals.

METHODS

We performed a systemic review to summarize the current strategies to diagnose and prevent endometrial cancer. Many published articles from the last years were identified and included.

RESULTS

A systematic review that summarizes the important subjects in the diagnosis and prevention of endometrial cancer.

CONCLUSION

Maintaining a high index of suspicion and obtaining endometrial biopsies from all suspected patients is the key for achieving a timely diagnosis.