Hysteroscopic resectoscope-directed biopsies and outpatient endometrial sampling for assessment of tumor histology in women with endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia

Best Practice Recommendations for Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia/Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia in the Military Health System

Endometrial cancer is the most prevalent gynecologic cancer in the United States and has rising incidence and mortality. Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (EIN-AEH), a precancerous neoplasm, is surgically managed with hysterectomy in patients who have completed childbearing because of risk of progression to cancer. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma (EC) is also present on hysterectomy specimens in up to 50% of cases. Conservative medical management with progestins and close surveillance can be employed for certain populations after evaluating for concurrent EC. Currently, national professional guidelines recommend an individualized approach based on community access to care and patient factors. There is, however, no US civilian consensus on who should primarily manage EIN-AEH: Physician gynecologic specialists (GSs) and/or gynecologic oncologist (GO) subspecialists. Military health care presents an additional challenge with beneficiaries stationed at remote or overseas locations. While patients may not have local access to a GO subspecialist, many locations are staffed with GSs. Travel for care with a GO incurs additional cost for the patient and the military health care system, removes patients from local support systems, and can impact mission readiness. To provide the best care, optimize clinical outcomes, and avoid over- or under-treatment, military-specific guidelines for EIN-AEH management are needed. We propose a clinical decision tree incorporating both GS and GO subspecialists in the care of military beneficiaries with EIN-AEH. The subject matter expert panel recommends referral of EIN-AEH to a military (preferrable) or civilian GO for management if local access is available within 100 miles[Q1] . If travel of >100 miles is required, the patient should be offered the choice of a military GO referral if available within 250 miles (preferred) versus management by a GS. If travel is >100 miles from a GO or the patient declines a GO referral, the panel recommends that the GS should attempt to exclude concurrent EC by performing a hysteroscopic assessment of the endometrium with a directed biopsy, if not already done. A pelvic ultrasound should be obtained to evaluate the endometrial thickness (>2 cm more likely to harbor EC) along with a secondary gynecologic pathology review with immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) and p53 expression. If any major additional risk factors are uncovered, the patient should be referred to a GO subspecialist for further management. If no additional major risk factors for concurrent EC are identified and hysteroscopy with expert gynecologic pathology review confirms no presence of EC in the pathology specimen, a virtual consultation and counseling with a military GO can be offered, with local surgical and/or medical management provided by a GS. If on subsequent pathology, EC is identified, the patient should be referred to a GO for further treatment considerations and counseling. Determining the optimal treatment for patients with EIN-AEH is nuanced and, within the military health care system, is complicated by varied access to expert management by a GO subspecialist. Military beneficiaries with this diagnosis present a unique challenge and warrant a standardized approach to maximize clinical outcomes.

Current challenges and emerging tools in endometrial cancer diagnosis

The diagnostic process of endometrial cancer includes imaging methods such as trans-vaginal ultrasound, along with procedures to obtain endometrial tissue for histologic evaluation. Common techniques for tissue sampling include Pipelle endometrial biopsy, hysteroscopy, and dilation and curettage, which are used to confirm the diagnosis, determine tumor histology, grade, and molecular profile. However, diagnostic algorithms for endometrial cancer differ significantly across countries, influenced by local resources, protocols, and the availability of diagnostic methods. These variations include differences in the endometrial thickness threshold for recommending a biopsy and the choice of the initial diagnostic test. Moreover, patients often have multiple tests and appointments before a definitive diagnosis, although only 5%-10% of women with post-menopausal bleeding are diagnosed with endometrial cancer. Current diagnostic techniques have limitations. Pipelle endometrial biopsy has a significant false-negative rate (10%-20%) and may fail to provide adequate diagnostic material in up to 30% of cases. Hysteroscopy, while useful, is associated with pain in up to 65% of patients and can delay diagnosis because of limited availability. Dilation and curettage is an invasive procedure requiring general anesthesia and has a higher complication rate. In response to these challenges, there is growing interest in developing new diagnostic tools that are less invasive and provide 1-step diagnoses, including liquid biopsies from urine, blood, cervico-vaginal and endometrial fluid samples by means of genomics and proteomics. This review will examine the current diagnostic algorithms in European and American guidelines, evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of current techniques, and explore new diagnostic tools under development.

Hysteroscopy-Guided Endometrial Sampling Diagnostic Performance in Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia Patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance of hysteroscopy-guided versus blind sampling in detecting concurrent endometrial carcinoma in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and to identify factors associated with missing cancer diagnosis.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Integrated academic and community healthcare system in Minnesota and Wisconsin, USA, January 1, 2018, and January 1, 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

This included 151 patients diagnosed with EIN during endometrial sampling who underwent a hysterectomy within 3 months. Patients with concurrent cancer diagnoses were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients diagnosed with EIN using hysteroscopy-directed biopsy were compared to those diagnosed with blind-sampling methods using the pathology results of the subsequent hysterectomy specimen as the gold standard comparator to analyze rates of missed endometrial cancer (EC) diagnosis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was a reduced risk of unanticipated concurrent EC on the final hysterectomy pathology result for patients diagnosed with endometrial intraepithelial hyperplasia via a hysteroscopy-directed biopsy (odds ratios [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.20-0.95, p = .033). In multivariate analysis, body mass index ≥30 and patient age >60 were associated with an elevated risk of EC on final pathology (OR = 4.17, 95% CI = 1.51-11.51, p = .004; OR = 5.56, 95% CI = 1.22-35.21, p < .001), respectively, and diabetes mellitus was the only independent variable associated with a higher risk of EIN on final hysterectomy pathology (OR = 7.01, 95% CI = 1.40-35.04, p = .018). Age, body mass index, and endometrial thickness on pre-biopsy ultrasound were not associated with an increased risk of overlooking concurrent endometrial carcinoma on final hysterectomy pathology on univariate and multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSION

Hysteroscopy-directed biopsy may reduce the risk of missing a concurrent endometrial malignancy during endometrial sampling in women with EIN. The results affirm the superior diagnostic accuracy of hysteroscopy-directed endometrial evaluation.

Treatment outcomes according to various progestin treatment strategies in patients with atypical hyperplasia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia - Multicenter retrospective study (KGOG2033)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate pathologic complete response (pCR) and recurrence outcomes using various progestin treatment strategies in patients with atypical hyperplasia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (AH/EIN).

METHODS

Medical records of patients diagnosed with AH/EIN and undergoing follow-up endometrial biopsy after progestin treatment between 2011 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical factors and treatment outcomes were analyzed according to initial progestin treatment (oral progestin [OP], levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device [LNG-IUD], and combination), OP dose, and maintenance treatment using Pearson's χ2, Fisher's exact test, and Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Of 124 patients included, 74, 37, and 13 were in the OP, LNG-IUD, and combination groups, respectively. The pCR rate was 79.8% and recurrence rate was 21.2%. The pCR rates within 3 and 6 months were significantly higher in the OP group than in the LNG-IUD group, but were not significantly different within 12 and 24 months. Recurrence rate was significantly higher in the OP group than in the LNG-IUD group. The pCR rate and recurrence rate had no significant differences between the combination group and the other groups. Excluding the LNG-IUD group, 53 and 34 patients received low- and high-dose OP, respectively. The pCR and recurrence rates were comparable between the low- and high-dose OP groups. Maintenance therapy was significantly associated with lower recurrence rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Although OP alone achieved more short-term pCR than the other groups, more recurrences occurred after pCR than LNG-IUD alone. High-dose OP as well as combination of OP and LNG-IUD did not increase pCR or reduce recurrence. Maintenance therapy may reduce the recurrence rate after pCR.

Management of Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia: ACOG Clinical Consensus No. 5

SUMMARY

Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) often is a precursor lesion to adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment for EIN-AEH. When a conservative (fertility-sparing) approach to the management of EIN-AEH is under consideration, it is important to attempt to exclude the presence of endometrial cancer to avoid potential undertreatment of an unknown malignancy in those who have been already diagnosed with EIN-AEH. Given the high risk of progression to cancer, those who do not have surgery require progestin therapy (oral, intrauterine, or combined) and close surveillance. Although data are conflicting and limited, studies have demonstrated that treatment with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device results in a higher regression rate when compared with treatment with oral progestins alone. Limited data suggest that cyclic progestational agents have lower regression rates when compared with continuous oral therapy. After initial conservative treatment for EIN-AEH, early detection of disease persistence, progression, or recurrence requires careful follow-up. Gynecologists and other clinicians should counsel patients that lifestyle modification resulting in weight loss and glycemic control can improve overall health and may decrease the risk of EIN-AEH and endometrial cancer.

Preoperative prediction of high-risk endometrial cancer by expert and non-expert transvaginal ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and endometrial histology

OBJECTIVE

To identify women with high-risk endometrial cancers using expert and non-expert transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) and MRI.

STUDY DESIGN

Myometrial involvement was prospectively evaluated in patients with atypical hyperplasia or endometrial cancer on ultrasound by non-experts at first visit (non-expert-TVS: n = 266) and experts (expert-TVS: n = 188) at second visit. MRI (n = 175) was performed when high-risk cancer was suspected on non-expert-TVS. Preoperatively, high-risk cancer was defined as myometrial involvement ≥50 %, or preoperative unfavorable tumor histology (grade 3 endometrioid, non-endometrioid tumors, or tumor in cervical biopsies) obtained by endometrial sampling or hysteroscopic biopsies. Preoperative evaluations were compared with final histopathology obtained at surgery, high-risk cancer being defined as unfavorable tumor histology or patients with FIGO stage ≥1b.

RESULTS

Preoperative unfavorable tumor histology was seen in 64 women and correctly identified 63 of 128 high-risk cancers. Preoperative diagnosis of unfavorable tumor histology or myometrial involvement ≥50 %, i.e. judged high-risk, had an area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of 79.5 %, 93.8 %, 65.2 % on non-expert-TVS; 85.5 %, 84.4 %, 86.5 % on expert-TVS, and 85.4 %, 89.6 %, 81.2 % on MRI. AUC values were not significantly different between MRI and expert-TVS, but lower on non-expert-TVS (p < 0.02). However, sensitivity was highest on non-expert-TVS, where a low cutpoint for myometrial involvement was used (included potentially deep and difficult evaluations) in contrast to an exact cutpoint of myometrial involvement ≥50 % used on expert-TVS and MRI. The highest AUC, 88.6 %, was seen when MRI was performed in patients with myometrial involvement ≥50 %, determined on non-expert TVS. Sensitivity was reduced to 85.9 %, while specificity increased to 91.3 %. Thus, MRI was needed for risk classification in only 104 (39 %) patients.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostically, expert-TVS and MRI were comparable and superior to non-expert-TVS. However, non-expert-TVS classified all patients with unclear myometrial involvement ≥50 %, and thereby only misdiagnosed 6.2 % of high-risk cases. Non-expert-TVS combined with MRI when myometrial involvement was ≥50 % on non-expert-TVS was a simple and effective method comparable with expert imaging to identify low- and high-risk cancer and select patients for SLND. Addition of MRI to the diagnostic regimen was needed in only 39 % of our patients.