Endometrial sampling devices for early diagnosis of endometrial lesions

Jiang Du, Yaling Li, Shulan Lv, Qing Wang, Chao Sun, Xin Dong, Ming He, Qurat Ulain, Yongxing Yuan, Xiaoqian Tuo, Nasra Batchu, Qing Song, Qiling Li, Jiang Du, Yaling Li, Shulan Lv, Qing Wang, Chao Sun, Xin Dong, Ming He, Qurat Ulain, Yongxing Yuan, Xiaoqian Tuo, Nasra Batchu, Qing Song, Qiling Li

Abstract

Purpose: Endometrial carcinoma is the most common gynecologic malignancy in both developed and some developing countries. Unlike cervical cancer, for which there is routine screening, only patients symptomatic for endometrial carcinoma typically seek medical help for its diagnosis and treatment. Dilatation and curettage (D&C) has been the standard procedure for evaluating suspicious endometrial lesions. The discomfort and injury caused by the D&C procedure, however, restrict its use as a screening method for early diagnosis of endometrial lesions. High-risk endometrial cancer patients would benefit from an effective and low-cost screening test. In recent years, several endometrial devices have been developed and proposed as screening tools.

Methods: We have reviewed and evaluated the literature relating to the endometrial sampling devices in clinical use or clinical trials, with the goal of comparing devices and identifying the most appropriate ones for screening for endometrial lesions. Eligible literature was identified from systematic PubMed searches, and the relevant data were extracted. Comments, letters, unpublished data, conference proceedings, and case reports were excluded from our search. Seventy-four articles on endometrial sampling devices were obtained for this review.

Results: The main screening devices for endometrial carcinoma are aspiration devices (such as the Vabra aspirator), Pipelle, Tao Brush, and SAP-1 device. Among these devices, the Tao Brush is the most promising endometrial sampler for screening for endometrial lesions. However, its sampling insufficiency, cost, and unsuccessful insertion rate (20 % in nulliparous and 8 % in parous women) are problematic.

Conclusions: A more accurate and low-cost endometrial sampler, with improved specimen sufficiency and higher sensitivity for endometrial lesions, needs tobe developed and clinically verified.

Keywords: Aspiration; Biopsy; Brush; Endometrial lesions; Screening.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Ways to collect endometrium
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Three types of brushes for endometrial cytology. a Tao Brush; b Li Brush; c SAP-1 endometrial sampler

References

    1. Abdelazim IA, Aboelezz A, Abdulkareem AF. Pipelle endometrial sampling versus conventional dilatation & curettage in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2013;14(1):1–5. doi: 10.5152/jtgga.2013.01.
    1. Antoni J, Folch E, Costa J, Foradada CM, Cayuela E, Combalia N, Rue M. Comparison of cytospat and pipelle endometrial biopsy instruments. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997;72(1):57–61. doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(96)02658-9.
    1. Batool T, Reginald PW, Hughes JH. Outpatient Pipelle endometrial biopsy in the investigation of postmenopausal bleeding. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101(6):545–546. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13161.x.
    1. Ben-baruch G, Seidman DS, Schiff E, Moran O, Menczer J. Outpatient endometrial sampling with the Pipelle curette. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 1994;37(4):260–262. doi: 10.1159/000292573.
    1. Bistoletti P, Hjerpe A. Routine use of endometrial cytology in clinical-practice. Acta Cytol. 1993;37(6):867–870.
    1. Bray F, Loos AH, Oostindier M, Weiderpass E. Geographic and temporal variations in cancer of the corpus uteri: incidence and mortality in pre- and postmenopausal women in Europe. Int J Cancer J Int du Cancer. 2005;117(1):123–131. doi: 10.1002/ijc.21099.
    1. Broso P. Cervico-vaginal and endometrial cytology in the screening for endometrial cancer. Minerva Ginecol. 1995;47(11):503–507.
    1. Bunyavejchevin S, Triratanachat S, Kankeow K, Limpaphayom KK. Pipelle versus fractional curettage for the endometrial sampling in postmenopausal women. J Med Assoc Thail =Chotmaihet thangphaet. 2001;84(Suppl 1):S326–S330.
    1. Check JH, Chase JS, Nowroozi K, Wu CH, Chern R. Clinical evaluation of the Pipelle endometrial suction curette for timed endometrial biopsies. J Reprod Med. 1989;34(3):218–220.
    1. Del Priore G, Williams R, Harbatkin CB, Wan LS, Mittal K, Yang GC. Endometrial brush biopsy for the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. J Reprod Med. 2001;46(5):439–443.
    1. Demirkiran F, Yavuz E, Erenel H, Bese T, Arvas M, Sanioglu C. Which is the best technique for endometrial sampling? Aspiration (pipelle) versus dilatation and curettage (D&C) Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(5):1277–1282. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2438-8.
    1. Dijkhuizen FPHLJ, Mol BWJ, Brolmann HAM, Heintz APM. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia—a meta-analysis. Cancer. 2000;89(8):1765–1772. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20001015)89:8<1765::AID-CNCR17>;2-F.
    1. Eddowes HA, Read MD, Codling BW. Pipelle: a more acceptable technique for outpatient endometrial biopsy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97(10):961–962. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02458.x.
    1. Eddowes HA, Read MD, Codling BW. Pipelle—a more acceptable technique for outpatient endometrial biopsy. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97(10):961–962. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02458.x.
    1. Elsandabesee D, Greenwood P. The performance of Pipelle endometrial sampling in a dedicated postmenopausal bleeding clinic. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;25(1):32–34. doi: 10.1080/01443610400025390.
    1. Fakhar S, Saeed G, Khan AH, Alam AY. Validity of Pipelle endometrial sampling in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Annals of Saudi Med. 2008;28(3):188–191. doi: 10.4103/0256-4947.51721.
    1. Foster-Rosales A, Koontz SL, de Perez OM, Leon K. Cost savings of manual vacuum aspiration for endometrial sampling in El Salvador. Contraception. 2003;68(5):353–357. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.08.007.
    1. Frishman G, Jacobs S. A randomized clinical-trial comparing Pipelle and Tis-u-trap for endometrial biopsy. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;76(2):315–316.
    1. Fujihara A, Norimatsu Y, Kobayashi TK, Iwanari O, Nagaoka S. Direct intrauterine sampling with Uterobrush: cell preparation by the “flicked” method. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006;34(7):486–490. doi: 10.1002/dc.20528.
    1. Gao J, Yang G, Wen W, Cai QY, Zheng W, Shu XO, Xiang YB. Impact of known risk factors on endometrial cancer burden in Chinese women. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015;25(4):329–334. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000178.
    1. Goldberg GL, Tsalacopoulos G, Davey DA. A comparison of endometrial sampling with the Accurette and Vabra aspirator and uterine curettage. S Afr Med J. 1982;61(4):114–116.
    1. Guido RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Rulin MC, Christopherson WA. Pipelle endometrial sampling. Sensitivity in the detection of endometrial cancer. J Reprod Med. 1995;40(8):553–555.
    1. Gungorduk K, Asicioglu O, Ertas IE, Ozdemir IA, Ulker MM, Yildirim G, Ataser G, Sanci M. Comparison of the histopathological diagnoses of preoperative dilatation and curettage and Pipelle biopsy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2014;35(5):539–543.
    1. Hemalatha AN, Pai MR, Raghuveer CV. Endometrial aspiration cytology in dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2006;49(2):214–217.
    1. Iavazzo C, Vorgias G, Mastorakos G, Stefanatou G, Panoussi A, Alexiadou A, Plyta S, Lekka C, Kalinoglou N, Dertimas V, et al. Uterobrush method in the detection of endometrial pathology. Anticancer Res. 2011;31(10):3469–3474.
    1. Kaunitz AM, Masciello A, Ostrowski M, Rovira EZ. Comparison of endometrial biopsy with the endometrial Pipelle and vabra aspirator. J Reprod Med. 1988;33(5):427–431.
    1. Kaur N, Chahal JS, Bandlish U, Kaul R, Mardi K, Kaur H. Correlation between cytological and histopathological examination of the endometrium in abnormal uterine bleeding. J Cytol. 2014;31(3):144–148. doi: 10.4103/0970-9371.145645.
    1. Kawana K, Yamada M, Jimbo H, Shirai T, Takahashi M, Sano Y, Shiromizu K. Diagnostic usefulness of endometrial aspiration cytology for endometrial cancer cases with normal curettage findings. Acta Cytol. 2005;49(5):507–512. doi: 10.1159/000326196.
    1. Kazandi M, Okmen F, Ergenoglu AM, Yeniel AO, Zeybek B, Zekioglu O, Ozdemir N. Comparison of the success of histopathological diagnosis with dilatation-curettage and Pipelle endometrial sampling. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32(8):790–794. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2012.719944.
    1. Kim MK, Seong SJ, Lee TS, Ki KD, Lim MC, Kim YH, Kim K, Joo WD. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy between endometrial curettage and pipelle aspiration biopsy in patients treated with progestin for endometrial hyperplasia: a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (KGOG 2019) Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(10):980–982. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyv106.
    1. Kipp BR, Medeiros F, Campion MB, Distad TJ, Peterson LM, Keeney GL, Halling KC, Clayton AC. Direct uterine sampling with the Tao brush sampler using a liquid-based preparation method for the detection of endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia: a feasibility study. Cancer. 2008;114(4):228–235. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23636.
    1. Kitiyodom S. The adequacy of endometrial sampling: comparison between manual vacuum aspiration and metal curettage method. J Med Assoc Thail =Chotmaihet thangphaet. 2015;98(6):523–527.
    1. Koonings PP, Moyer DL, Grimes DA. A randomized clinical-trial comparing Pipelle and tis-u-trap for endometrial biopsy—reply. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;76(2):316.
    1. Koonings PP, Moyer DL, Grimes DA. A randomized clinical-trial comparing Pipelle and tis-u-trap for endometrial biopsy. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75(2):293–295.
    1. Kriseman MM. Description of a new disposable uterine sampler (the Accurette) for endometrial cytology and histology. S Afr Med J. 1982;61(4):107–108.
    1. Leclair CM, Zia JK, Doom CM, Morgan TK, Edelman AB. Pain experienced using two different methods of endometrial biopsy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):636–641. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820ad45b.
    1. Leng X, Wang M, Zhang SL, Wang D, Cao W, Yang XH. Different methods for the diagnosis of endometrial histological comparative study. Zhonghua fu chan ke za zhi. 2013;48(12):891–895.
    1. Leonardi M, Provenzale P, Zanardini L, Bellicini G. The role of the Vabra aspirator in the screening of endometrial carcinoma. Our experience. Minerva Ginecol. 1993;45(9):395–398.
    1. Longacre TA, Chung MH, Jensen DN, Hendrickson MR. Proposed criteria for the diagnosis of well-differentiated endometrial carcinoma. A diagnostic test for myoinvasion. Am J Surg Pathol. 1995;19(4):371–406. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199504000-00001.
    1. Lubbers JA. Diagnostic suction curettage without anesthesia an investigation into practical usefulness of vabra aspirator. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1977;62:1–12. doi: 10.3109/00016347709158120.
    1. Machado F, Moreno J, Carazo M, Leon J, Fiol G, Serna R. Accuracy of endometrial biopsy with the Cornier pipelle for diagnosis of endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24(3–4):279–281.
    1. Maksem J, Sager F, Bender R. Endometrial collection and interpretation using the Tao brush and the CytoRich fixative system: a feasibility study. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;17(5):339–346. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199711)17:5<339::AID-DC6>;2-5.
    1. Masukawa T. Endometrial aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of hyperplasia and carcinoma. Acta Cytol. 1981;25(1):48.
    1. Moberger B, Nilsson S, Palmstierna S, Redvall L, Sternby N. A multicenter study comparing two endometrial sampling devices—Medscand Endorette TM and Pipelle de Cornier R. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77(7):764–769. doi: 10.1080/j.1600-0412.1998.770712.x.
    1. Morse AR, Ellice RM, Anderson MC, Beard RW. Reliability of endometrial aspiration cytology in the assessment of endometrial status. Obstet Gynecol. 1982;59(4):513–518.
    1. Naim NM, Mahdy ZA, Ahmad S, Razi ZR. The Vabra aspirator versus the Pipelle device for outpatient endometrial sampling. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;47(2):132–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2007.00699.x.
    1. Niklasson O, Johansson R, Stormby N. Screening of endometrial carcinoma by jet wash and endo-uterine aspiration cytology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1981;60(2):125–129.
    1. Polson DW, Morse A, Beard RW. An alternative to the diagnostic dilatation and curettage–endometrial cytology. Br Med J. 1984;288(6422):981–983. doi: 10.1136/bmj.288.6422.981.
    1. Poppendiek G, Bayer KH. The cytology of endometrium by aspiration—a method for the early detection of endometrial carcinoma. Geburtsh Frauenheilk. 1981;41(3):188–191. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1037352.
    1. Rauf R, Shaheen A, Sadia S, Waqar F, Zafar S, Sultana S, Waseem S. Outpatient endometrial biopsy with Pipelle versus diagnostic dilatation and curettage. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2014;26(2):145–148.
    1. Roberts M, Rodgers AD, Johri S, Case BD. Endometrial cytology—evaluation of samples obtained by outpatient aspiration. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101(7):628–629. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13656.x.
    1. Rodriguez GC, Yaqub N, King ME. A comparison of the Pipelle device and the Vabra aspirator as measured by endometrial denudation in hysterectomy specimens: the Pipelle device samples significantly less of the endometrial surface than the Vabra aspirator. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168(1 Pt 1):55–59. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(12)90884-4.
    1. Rosler EM, Wilken H, Beust M. Aspiration cytology—endometrial diagnosis in women with perimenopausal and postmenopausal bleedings. Zentralblatt Gynakol. 1991;113(19):1025–1032.
    1. Rosler EM, Wilken H, Beust M. Aspiration cytology–endometrium diagnosis of peri- and postmenopausal bleeding disorders. Zentralblatt Gynakol. 1991;113(19):1025–1032.
    1. Sanam M, Majid MM. Comparison the diagnostic value of dilatation and curettage versus endometrial biopsy by Pipelle–a clinical trial. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(12):4971–4975. doi: 10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.12.4971.
    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(1):11–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21166.
    1. Siegel R, Ma JM, Zou ZH, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2014. Ca-Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(1):9–29. doi: 10.3322/caac.21208.
    1. Sierecki AR, Gudipudi DK, Montemarano N, Del Priore G. Comparison of endometrial aspiration biopsy techniques specimen adequacy. J Reprod Med. 2008;53(10):760–764.
    1. Smith K, Snyder RN, Willie S, Cove KJ. Direct endometrial aspiration cytology—evaluation. Acta Cytol. 1980;24(1):75.
    1. Sundsbak HP, Jebsen P. The Pipelle. A good instrument for histological endometrial diagnosis. Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening: tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke. 1994;114(3):317–318.
    1. Tabata T, Yamawaki T, Ida M, Nishimura K, Nose Y, Yabana T. Clinical value of dilatation and curettage for abnormal uterine bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2001;264(4):174–176. doi: 10.1007/s004040000100.
    1. Tajima M, Inamura M, Nakamura M, Sudo Y, Yamagishi K. The accuracy of endometrial cytology in the diagnosis of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Cytopathology. 1998;9(6):369–380. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.1998.00139.x.
    1. Tanriverdi HA, Barut A, Gun BD, Kaya E. Is pipelle biopsy really adequate for diagnosing endometrial disease? Med Sci Monit. 2004;10(6):Cr271–Cr274.
    1. Tao LC. Direct intrauterine sampling: the IUMC Endometrial Sampler. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;17(2):153–159. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199708)17:2<153::AID-DC13>;2-F.
    1. Tripathy SN, Mahanty J. Place of aspiration cytology in dysfunctional uterine bleeding. J Indian Med Assoc. 1990;88(9):247–248.
    1. Van den Bosch T, Vandendael A, Wranz PA, Lombard CJ. Endopap-versus Pipelle-sampling in the diagnosis of postmenopausal endometrial disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;64(1):91–94. doi: 10.1016/0301-2115(95)02274-0.
    1. van Hoeven KH, Zaman SS, Deger RB, Artymyshyn RL. Efficacy of the Endo-pap sampler in detecting endometrial lesions. Acta Cytol. 1996;40(5):900–906. doi: 10.1159/000334000.
    1. Vuopala S, Klemi PJ, Maenpaa J, Salmi T, Makarainen L. Endobrush sampling for endometrial cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1989;68(4):345–350. doi: 10.3109/00016348909028670.
    1. Wen J, Chen R, Zhao J, Dong Y, Yang X, Liao QP. Combining endometrium sampling device and SurePath preparation to screen for endometrial carcinoma: a validation study. Chin Med J. 2015;128(5):648–653. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.151664.
    1. Williams AR, Brechin S, Porter AJ, Warner P, Critchley HO. Factors affecting adequacy of Pipelle and Tao Brush endometrial sampling. BJOG. 2008;115(8):1028–1036. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01773.x.
    1. Wu HH, Harshbarger KE, Berner HW, Elsheikh TM. Endometrial brush biopsy (Tao brush). Histologic diagnosis of 200 cases with complementary cytology: an accurate sampling technique for the detection of endometrial abnormalities. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114(3):412–418.
    1. Wu HHJ, Casto BD, Elsheikh TM. Endometrial brush biopsy—an accurate outpatient method of detecting endometrial malignancy. J Reprod Med. 2003;48(1):41–45.
    1. Yang GCH, Wan LS. Endometrial biopsy using the Tao Brush (R) method—a study of 50 women in a general gynecologic practice. J Reprod Med. 2000;45(2):109–114.
    1. Yanoh K, Norimatsu Y, Munakata S, Yamamoto T, Nakamura Y, Murata T, Kobayashi TK, Hirai Y. Evaluation of endometrial cytology prepared with the Becton Dickinson SurePath method: a pilot study by the Osaki Study Group. Acta Cytol. 2014;58(2):153–161. doi: 10.1159/000357769.
    1. Youssif SNM, Mcmillan DL. Outpatient endometrial biopsy—the Pipelle. Brit J Hosp Med. 1995;54(5):198–201.
    1. Zorlu CG, Cobanoglu O, Isik AZ, Kutluay L, Kuscu E. Accuracy of pipelle endometrial sampling in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 1994;38(4):272–275. doi: 10.1159/000292495.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel