Dilatation and curettage in patients with cervical polyps: a retrospective analysis

Women with asymptomatic cervical polyps may not need to see a gynaecologist or have them removed: an observational retrospective study of 1126 cases

OBJECTIVES

(1) To determine the prevalence of pathology in cervical polyps and whether referring and/or removing them is justified, (2) to assess the frequency of associated endometrial pathology and whether investigating the uterine cavity is warranted, and (3) to estimate the financial costs of processing cervical polyps.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of the histopathology database and case notes of women who had cervical polyps examined at the pathology department of Ipswich Hospital, UK, over a seven-year period from 01/01/2002 to 31/12/2008.

RESULTS

The number of cervical polyps removed from 988 women was 1126. Each case of polyps was considered as a separate episode. The recurrence rate was 15%. All polyps were benign except two (0.2%) symptomatic polyps that showed high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The cost of referring women with cervical polyps (excluding women aged >45 years with abnormal bleeding and those with abnormal smear) to see a gynaecologist and of examining polyps histologically was estimated to be pound 94816.40. Further investigations to assess the cervix and/or uterine cavity which were performed for 133 women (14.3%), because of the cervical polyps and for no other clinical indication, showed no significant pathology at cost of pound 41195.54.

CONCLUSION

Our data do not justify referring women with asymptomatic cervical polyps to see a gynaecologist. Further, removing these polyps and investigating the uterine cavity is not warranted. A policy of removing polyps from only symptomatic women or those with abnormal smear and limiting histological examination to these polyps would result in significant savings.

The Pipelle endometrial suction curette: how useful is it in clinical practice?

The Pipelle endometrial sampler is gaining popularity as an alternative to formal dilatation and curettage (D&C). This study demonstrates that the Pipelle reduces the number of D&Cs required to assess the endometrium by 65%. This has significant benefits in terms of patient safety and cost. If an inadequate sample is obtained, which occurs most commonly in the postmenopausal patient, there may be a temptation to ascribe this to the presence of an atrophic endometrium. This study, however, finds a significant chance of an underlying carcinoma in these cases. Thus whereas the Pipelle sampler has clinical usefulness when a sample sufficient for histological analysis is obtained, an equivocal result must lead to further investigation.

The role of hysteroscopy in the current management of the cervical polyps

The current management of patients with cervical polyps may include different approaches and protocols, such as a simply removal of the polyp in most cases at an office setting, surgical dilatation and curettage, electrosurgical excision or hysteroscopic polypectomy. Exploration of the cervical canal and uterine cavity by hysteroscopy determines the exact origin of the polyp pedicle (cervical or endometrial) and if there is any concurrent endometrial pathology. The majority of cervical polyps are asymptomatic, and their incidence is increasing with age. Symptomatic cervical polyps may cause intermenstrual bleeding, postcoital bleeding, heavy menses, postmenopausal bleeding and vaginal discharge. Cervical polyps may be detected by routine gynaecological examination, colposcopy, filling defects on hysterosalpingogram, gynaecological ultrasound (abdominal, transvaginal or sonohysterography) or endometrial biopsy. The location, number, and size of cervical polyps are best determined with diagnostic hysteroscopy. In the past, simple twisting or avulsion of the polyp or blind curettage was the standard surgical treatment of choice. However, this treatment often leaves residual polyp fragments in the cervical canal. Difficulty may also occur in differentiating endocervical from endometrial lesions. In addition, up to 25% of patients who have cervical polyp, have also a coexisting endometrial polyp, so there is a need for evaluation of the endometrial cavity. It is important to note the usefulness of hysteroscopy to manage a patient with a cervical polyp, especially when she presents abnormal uterine bleeding, in order to make an accurate diagnosis and offer appropriate treatment.

Immunohistochemical and hysteroscopic assessment of postmenopausal women with uterine bleeding whilst taking Tibolone

The gonadomimetic steroid Tibolone, is currently widely used for the treatment of menopausal symptoms. Up to 20% of women have been reported to have episodes of bleeding whilst on therapy. We investigated 37 cases who experienced bleeding episodes whilst on Tibolone and compared these to six cases who experienced no bleeding whilst on therapy and who underwent similar investigations in the course of a clinical study. All women underwent a diagnostic hysteroscopy and an endometrial biopsy, under a local anaesthetic. The endometrium was assessed by histology and with immunohistochemical markers for cellular proliferation (Ki67, PCNA), Heat Shock Protein 27 (HSP27) and bcl-2. There were 17 women with intracavitary lesions on hysteroscopy (including one in the control group), 10 with polyps, five with fibroids, two with congenital uterine anomalies. Histological diagnosis was not obtained in 16 cases. The high incidence of uterine polyps in the group who bled on Tibolone suggests an etiologic relation. The staining pattern with HSP27 demonstrated an oestrogenic effect. There were no differences in the bcl-2 immunoreactivity between those who bled and those who did not bleed on treatment which suggests absence of a link. Similarly, there were no differences in the expression of the proliferation markers. We conclude that episodes of bleeding in patients receiving Tibolone for hormone replacement therapy, whilst warranting investigation, should not cause undue concern.