Quantifying procedural pain associated with office gynecologic tract sampling methods

OBJECTIVE

Emerging technologies may enable detection of endometrial cancer with methods that are less invasive than standard biopsy methods. This study compares patient pain scores among 3 office gynecologic tract sampling methods and explores their potential determinants.

METHODS

A prospective study including 3 sampling methods (tampon, Tao brush (TB), endometrial biopsy (EB)) was conducted between December 2015 and August 2017 and included women ≥45 years of age presenting with abnormal uterine bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, or thickened endometrial stripe. Patients rated pain after each sampling procedure using a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Of 428 enrolled, 190 (44.39%) patients underwent all 3 sampling methods and reported a VAS score for each. Nearly half were postmenopausal (n = 93, 48.9%); the majority were parous (172, 90.5%) of which 87.8% had at least one vaginal delivery. Among the 190 patients, the median (IQR) pain score was significantly lower for sampling via tampon (0 [0,2]) compared to TB (28 [12, 52]) or EB (32 [15, 60]) (both p < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed rank test). Among women who underwent tampon sampling, age and pain scores showed a weak positive correlation (Spearman rank correlation, r = 0.14; p = 0.006); EB sampling was associated with a weak inverse correlation between parity and pain scores (r = -0.14; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Gynecologic tract sampling using a tampon had significantly lower pain than both EB and TB. Pain with tampon sampling was positively correlated with age and pain with EB sampling was inversely correlated with parity. Pain scores for TB and EB were not significantly related to age, menopausal status, or BMI.

Risk assessment of endometrial cancer and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia in women with abnormal bleeding and implications for clinical management algorithms

BACKGROUND

Most endometrial cancer cases are preceded by abnormal uterine bleeding, offering a potential opportunity for early detection and cure of endometrial cancer. Although clinical guidelines exist for diagnostic workup of abnormal uterine bleeding, consensus is lacking regarding optimal management for women with abnormal bleeding to diagnose endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE

We report the baseline data from a prospective clinical cohort study of women referred for endometrial evaluation at the Mayo Clinic, designed to evaluate risk stratification in women at increased risk for endometrial cancer. Here, we introduce a risk-based approach to evaluate diagnostic tests and clinical management algorithms in a population of women with abnormal bleeding undergoing endometrial evaluation at the Mayo Clinic.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 1163 women aged ≥45 years were enrolled from February 2013 to May 2019. We evaluated baseline absolute risks and 95% confidence intervals of endometrial cancer and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia according to clinical algorithms for diagnostic workup of women with postmenopausal bleeding (assessment of initial vs recurrent bleeding episode and endometrial thickness measured through transvaginal ultrasound). We also evaluated risks among women with postmenopausal bleeding according to baseline age (<60 vs 60+ years) as an alternative example. For this approach, biopsy would be conducted for all women aged 60+ years and those aged <60 years with an endometrial thickness of >4 mm. We assessed the clinical efficiency of each strategy by estimating the percentage of women who would be referred for endometrial biopsy, the percentage of cases detected and missed, and the ratio of biopsies per case detected.

RESULTS

Among the 593 women with postmenopausal bleeding, 18 (3.0%) had endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, and 47 (7.9%) had endometrial cancer, and among the 570 premenopausal women with abnormal bleeding, 8 (1.4%) had endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, and 7 (1.2%) had endometrial cancer. Maximum risk was noted in women aged 60+ years (17.7%; 13.0%-22.3%), followed by those with recurrent bleeding (14.7%; 11.0%-18.3%). Among women with an initial bleeding episode for whom transvaginal ultrasound was recommended, endometrial thickness did not provide meaningful risk stratification: risks of endometrial cancer and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia were nearly identical in women with an endometrial thickness of >4 mm (5.8%; 1.3%-10.3%) and ≤4 mm (3.6%; 0.9%-8.6%). In contrast, among those aged <60 years with an endometrial thickness of >4 mm, the risk of endometrial cancer and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia was 8.4% (4.3%-12.5%), and in those with an endometrial thickness of ≤4 mm, the risk was 0% (0.0%-3.0%; P=.01). The most efficient strategy was to perform biopsy in all women aged 60+ years and among those aged <60 years with an endometrial thickness of >4 mm, with the lowest percentage referred to biopsy while still detecting all cases.

CONCLUSION

Existing clinical recommendations for endometrial cancer detection in women with abnormal bleeding are not consistent with the underlying risk. Endometrial cancer risk factors such as age can provide important risk stratification compared with the assessment of recurrent bleeding. Future research will include a formal assessment of clinical and epidemiologic risk prediction models in our study population as well as validation of our findings in other populations.

Querying Patients With Cancer About Sexual Health and Sexual and Gender Minority Status: A Qualitative Study of Health-Care Providers

BACKGROUND

Although national organizations advocate that health-care providers ask patients about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status-to learn, for example, about side effects of treatment and to understand patients' social support-these conversations often do not occur. This study explored health-care providers' reasons for having/not having these conversations.

METHODS

This single-institution study recruited health-care providers from medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and gynecology. Face-to-face interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged: (1) patient-centric reasons for discussing/not discussing sexual health and sexual and gender minority status ("So I think just the holistic viewpoint is important"); (2) health-care provider-centric reasons for discussing/not discussing these issues ("That's going to take more time to talk about and to deal with…" or "I was raised orthodox, so this is not something we talk about…"; and (3) reasons that appeared to straddle both of the above themes (eg, acknowledgment of the sometimes taboo nature of these topics).

CONCLUSION

Although many health-care providers favor talking with patients with cancer about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status, limited time, personal reluctance, and the taboo nature of these topics appear at times to hamper the initiation of these conversations.