Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods of Endometrial Evaluation

  • Chapter
Diagnosis of Endometrial Biopsies and Curettings

  • 1196 Accesses

There are several methods of sampling the endometrium. The “gold standard” is dilation and curettage (D&C), which requires dilation of the cervix to allow insertion of a curette into the endometrial cavity. This technique allows for the most thorough sampling of the endometrium but requires anesthesia for cervical dilation. The curette is drawn across the anterior and posterior endometrial surfaces, scraping the tissue free. D&C also readily allows for a fractional curettage with sampling of both the endometrial and the endocervical mucosa. Fractional sampling is especially useful for evaluating possible endocervical pathology, such as extension of endometrial adenocarcinoma to the endocervix.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Grimes DA. Diagnostic dilation and curettage. A reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142:1–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith J, Schulman H. Current dilation and curettage. A need for revision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65:516–518.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Droegemueller W, Katz V. Diagnostic procedures. In: Stenchever MA, Droegemueller W, Herbst AL, Mishell DR, Jr, eds. Comprehensive gynecology. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2001: 219–249.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Butler WJ. Normal and abnormal uterine bleeding. In: Rock JA, Jones HW, III, eds. Te Linde’s operative gynecology. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003: 457–481.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Friedman F, Brodman ML. Endometrial sampling techniques. In: Altchek A, Deligdish L, eds. The uterus: Pathology, diagnosis and management. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1991: 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caron C, Tetu B, Laberge P, Bellemare G, Raymond P-E. Endocervical involvement by endometrial carcinoma on fractional curettage: A clinicopathological study of 37 cases. Mod Pathol 1991; 4:644–647.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nickelsen C. Diagnostic and curative value of uterine curettage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1980; 65:693–697.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schlaerth JB, Morrow CP, Rodriguez M. Diagnostic and therapeutic curettage in gestational trophoblastic disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162:1465–1471.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Daniel AG, Peters WA, III. Accuracy of office and operating room curettage in the grading of endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71:612–614.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Berkowitz RS, Desai U, Goldstein DP, Driscoll SG, Marean AR, Berstein MR. Pretreatment curettage—a predictor of chemotherapy response in gestational trophoblastic disease. Gynecol Oncol 1980;10:39–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cowles TA, Magrina JF, Masterson BJ, Capen CV. Comparison of clinical and surgical staging in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66:413–416.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Spencer CP, Whitehead MI. Endometrial assessment re-visited. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106:623–632.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Stock RJ, Kanbour L. A pre-hysterectomy curettage. Obstet Gynecol 1975; 45:537–560.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Epstein E, Ramirez A, Skoog L, Valentin L. Dilatation and curettage fails to detect most focal lesions in the uterine cavity in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80:1131–1136.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bettocchi S, Ceci O, Vicino M, Marello F, Impedovo L, Selvaggi L. Diagnostic inadequacy of dilatation and curettage. Fertil Steril 2001; 75:803–805.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Moller LMA, Berget A. Prehysterectomy curettage in women with uterine fibromyomata is not worthwhile. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993; 72:374–376.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Duplantier N, Finan MA, Barbe T. Necessity of endometrial biopsy in women with enlarged uteri and a preoperative diagnosis of uterine leiomyomata. J Reprod Med 2003;48:23–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Soothill PW, Alcock CJ, MacKenzie IZ. Discrepancy between curettage and hysterectomy histology in patients with stage I uterine malignancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96:478–481.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Piver MS, Lele SB, Barlow JJ, Blumenson L. Paraaortic lymph node evaluation in stage I endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1982;59:97–100.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sant Cassia LJ, Weppelmann B, Shingleton H, Soong SJ, Hatch K, Salter MM. Management of early endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 35:362–366.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Obermair A, Geramou M, Gucer F, Denison U, Graf AH, Kapshammer E, et al. Endometrial cancer: accuracy of the finding of a well differentiated tumor at dilatation and curettage compared to the findings at subsequent hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1999;9:383–386.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Feldman S, Berkowitz RS, Tosteson ANA. Cost-effectiveness of strategies to evaluate postmenopausal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81:968–975.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Larson DM, Johnson KK, Broste SK, Krawisz BR, Kresl JJ. Comparison of D&C and office endometrial biopsy in predicting final histopathologic grade in endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86:38–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Agostini A, Shojai R, Cravello L, Rojat-Habib MC, Roger V, Bretelle F, et al. Endometrial biopsy during outpatient hysteroscopy: Evaluation and comparison of two devices. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 97:220–222.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Dijkhuizen FP, Mol BW, Brolmann HA, Heintz AP. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. Cancer 2000; 89:1765–1772.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ferry J, Farnsworth A, Webster M, Wren B. The efficacy of the pipelle endometrial biopsy in detecting endometrial carcinoma. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 33:76–78.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Guido RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Rulin MC, Christopherson WA. Pipelle endometrial sampling. Sensitivity in the detection of endometrial cancer. J Reprod Med 1995;40:553–555.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Stovall TG, Photopulos GJ, Poston WM, Ling FW, Sandles LG. Pipelle endometrial sampling in patients with known endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77:954–956.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Koonings PP, Moyer DL, Grimes DA. A randomized clinical trial comparing Pipelle and Tis-u-trap for endometrial biopsy. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:293–295.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaunitz AM, Masciello A, Ostrowski M, Rovira EZ. Comparison of endometrial biopsy with the endometrial Pipelle and Vabra aspirator. J Reprod Med 1988; 33:427–431.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hill GA, Herbert CMI, Parker RA, Wentz AC. Comparison of late luteal phase endometrial biopsies using the Novak curette or Pipelle endometrial suction curette. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73:443–446.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Eddowes HA, Read MD, Codling BW. Pipelle—a more acceptable technique for outpatient endometrial biopsy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97:961–962.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Silver MM, Miles P, Rosa C. Comparison of Novak and Pipelle endometrial biopsy instruments. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78:828–830.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Stovall TG, Ling FW, Morgan PL. A prospective, randomized comparison of the Pipelle endometrial sampling device with the Novak curette. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:1287–1290.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fothergill DJ, Brown VA, Hill AS. Histological sampling of the endometrium—a comparison between formal curettage and the Pipelle sampler. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:779–780.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ferry J, Farnsworth A, Webster M, Wren B. The efficacy of the Pipelle endometrial biopsy in detecting endometrial carcinoma. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 33:76–78.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rodriguez GC, Yaqub N, King ME. A comparison of the Pipelle device and the Vabra aspirator as measured by endometrial denudation in hysterectormy specimens: The Pipelle device samples significantly less of the endometrial surface than the Vabra aspirator. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168:55–59.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Check JH, Chase TS, Nowroozi K, Wu CH, Chern R. Clinical evaluation of the Pipelle endometrial suction curette for timed endometrial biopsy. J Reprod Med 1989; 34:218–220.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Henig I, Chan P, Treadway PR, Maw BM, Gullett AJ, Chatwood M. Evaluation of the Pipelle curette for endometrial biopsy. J Reprod Med 1989; 34:786–789.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Barnhart KT, Gracia CR, Reindl B, Wheeler JE. Usefulness of pipelle endometrial biopsy in the diagnosis of women at risk for ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:906–909.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ong S, Duffy T, Lenehan P, Murphy J. Endometrial pipelle biopsy compared to conventional dilatation and curettage. Ir J Med Sci 1997; 166:47–49.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Ries A, Singson P, Bidus M, Barnes JG. Use of the endometrial pipelle in the diagnosis of early abnormal gestations. Fertil Steril 2000;74:593–595.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Einerth Y. Vacuum curettage by the Vabra method. A simple procedure for endometrial diagnosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982;61:373–376.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wu HH, Casto BD, Elsheikh TM. Endometrial brush biopsy. An accurate outpatient method of detecting endometrial malignancy. J Reprod Med 2003; 48:41–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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; 46:439–443.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Stubblefield PM. Conception control: contraception, sterilization, and pregnancy termination. In: Kistner RW, ed. Gynecology: Principles and practice. 4th ed. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1986: 583–621.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Grimes DA. Management of abortion. In: Rock JA, Jones HW, III, eds. Te Linde’s operative gynecology. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003: 483–505.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Friedler S, Margalioth EJ, Kafka I, Yaffe H. Incidence of post-abortion intra-uterine adhesions evaluated by hysteroscopy. A prospective study. Hum Reprod 1993;8:442–444.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Hellen EA, Coghill SB, Shaxted EJ. The histopathology of transcervical resection of the endometrium—an analysis of 200 cases. Histopathology 1993; 22:361–365.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Baggish MS. Operative hysteroscopy. In: Rock JA, Jones HW, III, eds. Te Linde’s operative gynecology. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003: 379–411.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Valle RF. Office hysteroscopy (panoramic hysteroscopy). In: Baggish MS, Barbot J, Valle RF, eds. Diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy: A text and atlas. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999: 171–183.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vallee RF, Baggish MS. Instrumentation for hysteroscopy. In: Baggish MS, Barbot J, Valle RF, eds. Diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy: A text and atlas. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1989: 97–126.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Daniell JF, Kurtz BR, Ke RW. Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation using the rollerball electrode. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80:329–332.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Rogers PAW, Polson D, Murphy CR, Hosie M, Susil B, Leoni M. Correlation of endometrial histology, morphometry, and ultrasound appearance after different stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1991; 55:583–587.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Fleischer AC, Gordon AN, Entman SS, Kepple DM. Transvaginal scanning of the endometrium. J Clin Ultrasound 1990; 18:337–349.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Khalifa E, Brzyski RG, Oehninger S, Acosta AA, Muasher SJ. Sonographic appearance of the endometrium—The predictive value for the outcome of in vitro fertilization in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 1992; 7:677–680.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Dickey RP, Olar TT, Curole DN, Taylor SN, Rye PH. Endometrial pattern and thickness associated with pregnancy outcome after assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod 1992; 7:418–421.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Sheth S, Hamper UM, Kurman RJ. Thickened endometrium in the postmenopausal woman—sonographic—pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993; 187:135–139.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Dorum A, Kristensen GB, Langebrekke A, Sornes T, Skaar O. Evaluation of endometrial thickness measured by endovaginal ultrasound in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993; 72:116–119.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Doherty CM, Silver B, Binor Z, Molo MW, Radwanska E. Transvaginal ultrasound and the assessment of luteal phase endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168:1702–1709.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Fleischer AC. Transvaginal sonography of endometrial disorders. In: Fleischer AC, Manning FA, Jeanty P, Romero R, eds. Sonography in obstetrics and gynecology. Principles and practice. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001: 979–1000.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Iha T, Shen H, Kanazawa K. Hysteroscopy to detect stage IA well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:378–384.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Giorda G, Crivellari D, Veronesi A, Perin T, Campagnutta E, Carbone A, et al. Comparison of ultrasonography, hysteroscopy, and biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial lesions in postmenopausal tamoxifen-treated patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002;81:975–980.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Panda JK. One-stop clinic for postmenopausal bleeding. J Reprod Med 2002; 47:761–766.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Gull B, Karlsson B, Milsom I, Granberg S. Can ultrasound replace dilation and curettage? A longitudinal evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding and transvaginal sonographic measurement of the endometrium as predictors of endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188:401–408.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Davidson KG, Dubinsky TJ. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the endometrium in postmenopausal vaginal bleeding. Radiol Clin North Am 2003; 41:769–780.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Giusa-Chiferi MG, Goncalves WJ, Baracat EC, Albuquerque Neto LC, Bortoletto CC, de Lima GR. Transvaginal ultrasound, uterine biopsy and hysteroscopy for postmenopausal bleeding. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1996; 55:39–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Langer RD, Pierce JJ, O’Hanlan KA, Johnson SR, Espeland MA, Trabal JF, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography compared with endometrial biopsy for the detection of endometrial disease. Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions Trial. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:1792–1798.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Smith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K, Feldstein VA, Subak L, Scheidler J, Segal M, et al. Endovaginal ultrasound to exclude endometrial cancer and other endometrial abnormalities. JAMA 1998; 280:1510–1517.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Weber AM, Belinson JL, Bradley LD, Piedmonte MR. Vaginal ultrasonography versus endometrial biopsy in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177:924–929.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Goldchmit R, Katz Z, Blickstein I, Caspi B, Dgani R. The accuracy of endometrial Pipelle sampling with and without sonographic measurement of endometrial thickness. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82:727–730.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Fleischer AC, Diamond MP, Cartwright PS. Transvaginal sonography of ectopic pregnancy. In: Fleischer AC, Manning FA, Jeanty P, Romero R, eds. Sonography in obstetrics and gynecology. Principles and practice. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001: 113–138.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Fleischer AC, Jones HWI. Sonography of trophoblastic diseases. In: Fleischer AC, Manning FA, Jeanty P, Romero R, eds. Sonography in obstetrics and gynecology, principles and practice. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001: 843–852.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Lange RC, Buberg AC, McCarthy SM. An evaluation of MRI contrast in the uterus using synthetic imaging. Magnet Reson Med 1991; 17:279–284.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Brown HK, Stoll BS, Nicosia SV, Florica JV, Hambley PS, Clarke LP, et al. Uterine junctional zone: Correlation between histologic findings and MR imaging. Radiology 1991; 179:409–413.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Scoutt LM, Flynn SD, Luthringer DJ, McCauley TR, McCarthy SM. Junctional zone of the uterus: correlation of MR imaging and histologic examination of hysterectomy specimens. Radiology 1991; 179:403–407.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Schneider G. Pelvis. In: Runge VM, ed. Clinical MRI. Philadelphia: WB Saunders. 2002: 353–382.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Ascher SM, Reinhold C. Imaging of cancer of the endometrium. Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40:563–576.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Olesen F. Imaging techniques for evaluation of the uterine cavity and endometrium in premenopausal patients before minimally invasive surgery. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2002; 57:388–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Frei KA, Kinkel K. Staging endometrial cancer: Role of magnetic resonance imaging. J Magnet Reson Imaging 2001; 13:850–855.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Barton JW, McCarthy SM, Kohorn EI, Scoutt LM, Lange RC. Pelvic MR imaging findings in gestational trophoblastic disease, incomplete abortion, and ectopic pregnancy: are they specific? Radiology 1993; 186:163–168.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Buckley CH, Fox H. Biopsy pathology of the endometrium. 2nd ed. London: Arnold; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Kepes JJ, Oswald O. Tissue artefacts caused by sponge in embedding cassettes. Am J Surg Pathol 1991; 15:810–812.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Carson SA, Buster JE. Ectopic pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:1174–1181.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Azumi N, Czernobilsky B. Immunohistochemistry. In: Kurman RJ, ed. Blaustein’s pathology of the female genital tract. 5th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002: 1251–1276.

    Google Scholar 

  86. McCluggage WG. Recent advances in immunohistochemistry in gynaecological pathology. Histopathology 2002; 40:309–326.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Soslow RA, Isacson C. Diagnostic immunohistochemistry of the female genital tract. In: Dabbs DJ, ed. Diagnostic immunohistochemistry. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2002: 486–516.

    Google Scholar 

  88. O’Connor DM, Kurman RJ. Intermediate trophoblast in uterine curettings in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72:665–670.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Kaspar HG, To T, Dinh TV. Clinical use of immunoperoxidase markers in excluding ectopic gestation. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78:433–437.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Daya D, Sabet L. The use of cytokeratin as a sensitive and reliable marker for trophoblastic tissue. Am J Clin Pathol 1991; 95:137–141.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Yeh IT, O’Connor DM, Kurman RJ. Intermediate trophoblast: further immunocytochemical characterization. Mod Pathol 1990; 3:282–287.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Sorensen FB, Marcussen N, Daugaard HO, Kristiansen JD, Moller J, Ingerslev HJ. Immunohistological demonstration of intermediate trophoblast in the diagnosis of uterine versus ectopic pregnancy—a retrospective survey and results of a prospective trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98:463–469.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Kurman RJ, Main CS, Chen HC. Intermediate trophoblast: A distinctive form of trophoblast with specific morphological, biochemical and functional features. Placenta 1984; 5:349–370.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Angel E, Davis JR, Nagle RB. Immunohistochemical demonstration of placental hormones in the diagnosis of uterine versus ectopic pregnancy. Am J Clin Pathol 1985; 84:705–709.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Shih I-M, Mazur MT, Kurman RJ. Gestational trophoblastic disease and related lesions. In: Kurman RJ, ed. Blaustein’s pathology of the female genital tract. 5th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002: 1193–1247.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Shih I, Wang T, Wu T, Kurman RJ, Gearhart JD. Expression of Mel-CAM in implantation site intermediate trophoblastic cell line, IST-1, limits its migration on uterine smooth muscle cells. J Cell Sci 1998; 111(Pt 17):2655–2664.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Kurman RJ, Young RH, Norris HJ, Main CS, Lawrence WD, Scully RE. Immunocytochemical localization of placental lactogen and chorionic gonadotropin in the normal placenta and trophoblastic tumors, with emphasis on intermediate trophoblast and the placental site trophoblastic tumor. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1984; 3:101–121.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Young RE, Kurman RJ, Scully RE. Proliferations and tumors of intermediate trophoblast of the placental site. Semin Diagn Pathol 1988; 5:223–237.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Shih IM, Kurman RJ. The pathology of intermediate trophoblastic tumors and tumor-like lesions. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2001; 20:31–47.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Shih IM, Kurman RJ. Epithelioid trophoblastic tumor: A neoplasm distinct from choriocarcinoma and placental site trophoblastic tumor simulating carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1998; 22:1393–1403.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Shih IM, Kurman RJ. p63 expression is useful in the distinction of epithelioid trophoblastic and placental site trophoblastic tumors by profiling trophobastic subpopulations. Am J Surg Pathol (In press).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Shih IM, Kurman RJ. Ki-67 labeling index in the differential diagnosis of exaggerated placental site, placental site trophoblastic tumor, and choriocarcinoma: A double immunohistochemical staining technique using Ki-67 and Mel-CAM antibodies. Hum Pathol 1998; 29:27–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Nakamura Y, Moritsuka Y, Ohta Y, Itoh S, Haratake A, Kage M, et al. S-100 protein in glands within decidua and cervical glands during early pregnancy. Hum Pathol 1989; 20:1204–1209.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Agarwal S, Singh UR. Immunoreactivity with S100 protein as an indicator of pregnancy. Indian J Med Res 1992; 96:24–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Ronnett BM, Kurman RJ. Precursor lesions of endometrial carcinoma. In: Kurman R, ed. Blaustein’s pathology of the female genital tract. 5th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002: 467–500.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Lax SF, Pizer ES, Ronnett BM, Kurman RJ. Clear cell carcinoma of the endometrium is characterized by a distinctive profile of p53, Ki-67, estrogen, and progesterone receptor expression. Hum Pathol 1998; 29:551–558.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Wheeler DT, Bell KA, Kurman RJ, Sherman ME. Minimal uterine serous carcinoma: Diagnosis and clinicopathologic correlation. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24:797–806.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Lax SF, Pizer ES, Ronnett BM, Kurman RJ. Comparison of estrogen and progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and p53 immunoreactivity in uterine endometrioid carcinoma and endometrioid carcinoma with squamous, mucinous, secretory, and ciliated cell differentiation. Hum Pathol 1998; 29:924–931.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Staebler A, Sherman ME, Zaino RJ, Ronnett BM. Hormone receptor immunohistochemistry and human papillomavirus in situ hybridization are useful for distinguishing endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26:998–1006.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Kamoi S, AlJuboury MI, Akin MR, Silverberg SG. Immunohistochemical staining in the distinction between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas: Another viewpoint. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002; 21:217–223.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. McCluggage WG, Sumathi VP, McBride HA, Patterson A. A panel of immunohistochemical stains, including carcinoembryonic antigen, vimentin, and estrogen receptor, aids the distinction between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002; 21:11–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Zhang X, Lin Z, Lee ES, Kim I. Immunohistochemical profiles of endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas. Mod. Pathol. 16 [217A]. 2003 (Abstr).

    Google Scholar 

  113. Ansari-Lari MA, Staebler A, Ronnett BM. Distinction of endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas: p16 expression correlated with human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA detection by in situ hybridization (ISH). Mod. Pathol. 16, 180A. 2003 (Abstr).

    Google Scholar 

  114. McCluggage WG, Jenkins D. p16 immunoreactivity may assist in the distinction between endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2003; 22:231–235.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Dabbs DJ, Geisinger KR, Norris HT. Intermediate filaments in endometrial and endocervical carcinomas. The diagnostic utility of vimentin patterns. Am J Surg Pathol 1986; 10:568–576.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Tamimi HK, Gown AM, Kimdeobald J, Figge DC, Greer BE, Cain JM. The utility of immunocytochemistry in invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166:1655–1662.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Castrillon DH, Lee KR, Nucci MR. Distinction between endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinoma: An immunohistochemical study. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002; 21:4–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Cohen C, Shulman G, Budgeon LR. Endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: An immunoperoxidase and histochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 1982; 6:151–157.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Maes G, Fleuren GJ, Bara J, Nap M. The distribution of mucins, carcinoembryonic antigen, and mucus-associated antigens in endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1988; 7:112–122.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Debrito PA, Silverberg SG, Orenstein JM. Carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed mullerian (mesodermal) tumor) of the female genital tract—immunohistochemical and ultrastructural analysis of 28 cases. Hum Pathol 1993;24:132–142.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. George E, Manivel JC, Dehner LP, Wick MR. Malignant mixed mullerian tumors: An immunohistochemical study of 47 cases, with histogenetic considerations and clinical correlation. Hum Pathol 1991; 22:215–223.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Geisinger KR, Dabbs DJ, Marshall RB. Malignant mixed mullerian tumors. An ultrastructural and immunohistochemical analysis with histogenetic considerations. Cancer 1987; 59:1781–1790.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Auerbach HE, Livolsi VA, Merino MJ. Malignant mixed mullerian tumors of the uterus. An immunohistochemical study. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1988; 7:123–130.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Meis JM, Lawrence WD. The immunohistochemical profile of malignant mixed mullerian tumor. Overlap with endometrial adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 1990; 94:1–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Costa MJ, Khan R, Judd R. Carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed mullerian [mesodermal] tumor) of the uterus and ovary. Correlation of clinical, pathologic, and immunohistochemical features in 29 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1991; 115:583–590.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Bitterman P, Chun B, Kurman RJ. The significance of epithelial differentiation in mixed mesodermal tumors of the uterus. A clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 1990; 14:317–328.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Farhood AI, Abrams J. Immunohistochemistry of endometrial stromal sarcoma. Hum Pathol 1991; 22:224–230.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Franquemont DW, Frierson HF, Mills SE. An immunohistochemical study of normal endometrial stroma and endometrial stromal neoplasms—evidence for smooth muscle differentiation. Am J Surg Pathol 1991; 15:861–870.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Lillemoe TJ, Perrone T, Norris HJ, Dehner LP. Myogenous phenotype of epithelial-like areas in endometrial stromal sarcomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1991; 115:215–219.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Nucci MR, O’Connell JT, Huettner PC, Cviko A, Sun D, Quade BJ. h-Caldesmon expression effectively distinguishes endometrial stromal tumors from uterine smooth muscle tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 2001; 25:455–463.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. Oliva E, Young RH, Amin MB, Clement PB. An immunohistochemical analysis of endometrial stromal and smooth muscle tumors of the uterus: A study of 54 cases emphasizing the importance of using a panel because of overlap in immunoreactivity for individual antibodies. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26:403–412.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Dabbs DJ. Carinomatous differentiation and metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary. In: Dabbs DJ, ed. Diagnostic immunohistochemistry. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2002: 163–196.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Gocke CD. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In: Dabbs DJ, ed. Diagnostic immunohistochemistry. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2002: 113–134.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Upstate Medical University, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY 13210

    Michael T. Mazur MD (Clinical Professor of Pathology)

  2. ClearPath Diagnostics, Syracuse, NY 13202, USA

    Michael T. Mazur MD (Clinical Professor of Pathology)

  3. Departments of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA

    Robert J. Kurman MD (Richard W. TeLinde, Distinguished Professor)

  4. The Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA

    Robert J. Kurman MD (Richard W. TeLinde, Distinguished Professor)

Authors
  1. Michael T. Mazur MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert J. Kurman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mazur, M.T., Kurman, R.J. (2005). Methods of Endometrial Evaluation. In: Diagnosis of Endometrial Biopsies and Curettings. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-26321-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-26321-2_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-98615-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-26321-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation