Objective It has been suggested that the manipulation of neoplastic tissue during hysteroscopy may lead to dissemination of tumor cells into the peritoneal cavity and worsen prognosis and overall survival. The goal of this study was to assess the oncological safety comparing hysteroscopy to Pipelle blind biopsy in the presurgical diagnosis of patients with endometrial cancer.
Methods We performed a retrospective multicentric study among patients who had received primary surgical treatment for endometrial cancer. A multivariate statistical analysis model was used to compare relapse and survival rates in patients who had been evaluated preoperatively either by hysteroscopy or Pipelle biopsy. The relapse rate, disease-free survival, and overall survival were assessed as the main outcomes. The histological type, tumor size, myometrial invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, surgical approach, use of a uterine manipulator, and adjuvant treatment were also included in the analysis.
Results A total of 1731 women from 15 centers were included: 1044 in the hysteroscopy group and 687 in the Pipelle sampling group. 225 patients relapsed during the 10 year follow-up period: 139 (13.3%) in the hysteroscopy group and 86 (12.4%) in the Pipelle sampling group. There is no evidence of an association between the use of hysteroscopy as a diagnostic method and relapse rate (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.66; p=0.16), lower disease-free survival (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.66; p=0.15), or overall survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; p=0.76).
Conclusion Hysteroscopy is a safe diagnostic method for patients with endometrial cancer with no impact on oncological outcomes when compared with sampling by Pipelle.
- endometrial neoplasms
- surgical oncology
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors Guarantors: RQ-B and PP-I. Conceptualization: RQ-B, PP-I and AC. Methodology: RQ-B, PP-I and AC. Validation: PP-I, AD y AC. Formal analysis: PP-I and AC. Investigation: RQ-B and PP-I. Resources: RQ-B, PP-I, AG-M, RO-P, PJC, MBM-S, MP-G, CL, EC, JG-E, LS, FR-R, BD-F, JRR-H, JM-S, JCM, AC and SD. Data curation: RQ-B, PP-I, AG-M, RO-P, PJC, MBM-S, MP-G, CL, EC, JG-E, LS, FR-R, BD-F, JRR-H, JM-S, JCM, AC and SD. Writing - original draft: RQ-B, PP-I and AC. Writing - review and editing: RQ-B, PP-I, AC, AG-M, PJC. Visualization: RQ-B, PP-I, AG-M, ROP, PJC, MBM-S, MP-G, CL, EC, JG-E, LS, FR-R, BD-F, JRR-H, JM-S, JCM, AC and SD. Supervision: PP-I, SD y AC. Project administration: RQ-B and PP-I.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.