Echosonography’s accuracy of intrauterine pathology’s diagnostics in reproductive-age women
https://doi.org/10.21518/ms2023-107
Abstract
Introduction. Accuracy of transvaginal sonography (TVS) is substantial as the first-line approach of intrauterine pathology diagnostics. However, TVS has some limitations and factors that reduce its accuracy have not been definitively determined.
Aim. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of echography in intrauterine pathology and identify factors affecting it. Materials and methods. The study included 250 women who underwent hysteroscopy with endometrial biopsy: 128 with endometrial polyps (EP), 33 with endometrial hyperplasia (EH), 28 with chronic endometritis (CE) and 60 women without endometrial pathology.
Results. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in diagnosis of EP was 64.8% and 77.9%, respectively, EH – 64.7% and 89.8%, CE – 39.3% and 90.1%. Cumulative intrauterine pathology’s sensitivity reached 94.7%, and the specificity – 15.0%, which indicates a significant amount of false positive results. The lowest accuracy was in CE, EP less than 0.6 cm and in the absence of abnormal uterine bleeding.
Conclusions. TVS has limitations in verifying a specific diagnosis and characterized by both hyper- and hypodiagnosis. The clinician should take into account the size of the EP and the presence of symptoms for choosing optimal management.
About the Authors
I. A. Ivanov
Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ilya A. Ivanov, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Researcher of the Department of Gynecological Endocrinology,
4, Academician Oparin St., Moscow, 117997
K. V. Kostуukov
Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kirill V. Kostуukov, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Head of the Ultrasound and Functional Diagnostics Department,
4, Academician Oparin St., Moscow, 117997
G. E. Chernukha
Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Galina E. Chernukha, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Рrofessor,
4, Academician Oparin St., Moscow, 117997
References
1. Adamyan L.V., Andreeva E.N., Artymuk N.V., Absatarova Y.S., Refugee V.F., Belokrinitskaya T.E. et al. Abnormal uterine bleeding: clinical recommendations. Moscow; 2021. 50 р. (In Russ.) Available at: https://roag-portal.ru/recommendations_gynecology.
2. Munro M.G., Critchley H.O.D., Fraser I.S. The two FIGO systems for normal and abnormal uterine bleeding symptoms and classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years: 2018 revisions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;143(3):393–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12666.
3. Matthews M.L. Abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015;42(1):103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2014.09.006.
4. Astrup K., Olivarius Nde F. Frequency of spontaneously occurring postmenopausal bleeding in the general population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(2):203–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0001-6349.2004.00400.x.
5. Capmas P., Pourcelot A.-G., Giral E., Fedida D., Fernandez H. Office hysteroscopy: A report of 2402 cases. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2016;45(5):445–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2016.02.007.
6. Kaprin A.D., Starinsky V.V., Shakhzadova A.O. (eds.). Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2020 (morbidity and mortality). Moscow: Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center; 2021. 252 р. (In Russ.) Available at: https://oncology-association.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/zis-2020-elektronnaya-versiya.pdf.
7. Adamyan L.V., Andreeva E.N., Artymuk N.V., Belokrinitskaya T.E., Refugee V.F., Suturina L.V. et al. Inflammatory diseases of female pelvic organs: clinical guidelines. Moscow; 2021. 46 р. (In Russ.) Available at: https://s.siteapi.org/e09a3cb6640713d.ru/docs/nbu2sklwj7kw008oswwkcooocwc0ck.
8. Jayaprakasan К., Polanski L, Ojha K. Gynaecological Ultrasound Scanning. Cambridge University Press; 2020. 236 р. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108149877.
9. Wanderley M. da S., Álvares M.M., Vogt M. de F.B., Sazaki L.M.P. Accuracy of Transvaginal Ultrasonography, Hysteroscopy and Uterine Curettage in Evaluating Endometrial Pathologies. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016;38(10):506–511. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1593774.
10. Vitner D., Filmer S., Goldstein I., Khatib N., Weiner Z. A comparison between ultrasonography and hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of uterine pathology. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;171(1):143–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.08.024.
11. Chernukha G.E., Asaturova A.V., Ivanov I.A., Dumanovskaya M.R. The structure of endometrial pathology in different age periods. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya (Russian Federation). 2018;(8):129–134. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2018.8.129-134.
12. Inal Z.O., Inal H.A., Kucukosmanoglu I., Kucukkendirci H. Assessment of Endometrial Sampling and Histopathological Results: Analysis of 4,247 Cases. Eurasian J Med. 2017;49(1):44–47. https://doi.org/10.5152/eurasianjmed.2017.16269.
13. Jetley S., Rana S., Jairajpuri Z.S. Morphological spectrum of endometrial pathology in middle-aged women with atypical uterine bleeding: A study of 219 cases. J Midlife Health. 2013;4(4):216–220. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-7800.122242.
14. Barbara L., Hoffman M., John O., Schorge M., Lisa M., Halvorson M. et al. Williams Gynecology. McGraw-Hill Education; 2020.
15. Shiva M., Ahmadi F., Arabipoor A., Oromiehchi M., Chehrazi M. Accuracy of Two-Dimensional Transvaginal Sonography and Office Hysteroscopy for Detection of Uterine Abnormalities in Patients with Repeated Implantation Failures or Recurrent Pregnancy Loss. Int J Fertil Steril. 2018;11(4):287–292. https://doi.org/10.22074/ijfs.2018.5134.
16. Schwärzler P., Concin H., Bösch H., Berlinger A., Wohlgenannt K., Collins W.P. et al. An evaluation of sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the assessment of intrauterine pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;11(5):337–342. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1998.11050337.x.
17. Fadl S.A., Sabry A.S., Hippe D.S., Al-Obaidli A., Yousef R.R., Dubinsky T.J. Diagnosing Polyps on Transvaginal Sonography: Is Sonohysterography Always Necessary? Ultrasound Q. 2018;34(4):272–277. https://doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000384.
18. Soljačić Vraneš H., Djaković I., Kraljević Z., Nakić Radoš S., Leniček T., Kuna K. Clinical value of transvaginal ultrasonography in comparison to hysteroscopy with histopathologic examination in diagnosing endometrial abnormalities. Acta Clin Croat. 2019;58(2):249–254. https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2019.58.02.07.
19. Yao Y., Lv W., Xie X., Cheng X. The value of hysteroscopy and transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Cancer Res. 2019;8(4):1179–1187. https://doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2019.06.33.
20. Park Y.R., Lee S.W., Kim Y., Bae I.Y., Kim H.-K., Choe J. et al. Endometrial thickness cut-off value by transvaginal ultrasonography for screening of endometrial pathology in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2019;62(6):445–453. https://doi.org/10.5468/ ogs.2019.62.6.445.
21. Babacan A., Gun I., Kizilaslan C., Ozden O., Muhcu M., Mungen E. et al. Comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of uterine pathologies. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7(3):764–769. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24753775.
Review
For citations:
Ivanov IA, Kostуukov KV, Chernukha GE. Echosonography’s accuracy of intrauterine pathology’s diagnostics in reproductive-age women. Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council. 2023;(5):22-28. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21518/ms2023-107
Views:
426
Email this article 