Diagnostic yield of pipelle biopsy in detection of endometrial carcinoma in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding

Sumera Qayyum; Bushra Gul; Shabana Fida

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS9.14587

Authors

Sumera Qayyum District Specialist, Type D Hospital, Lundkhwar Mardan
Bushra Gul Consultant Gynecologist, Category D Hospital Jamrod
Shabana Fida
dr.shabana707@gmail.com
Senior Women Medical Officer Gynae Unit, Category D Hospital Ghara Tajik

Keywords:

Diagnostic yield, pipelle biopsy, abnormal uterine bleeding, endometrial carcinoma

Abstract

Introduction: Endometrial carcinoma is the type of cancer of the female genital tract that occurs most frequently. Pipelle is an excellent method for screening and diagnostic purposes and has a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for the detection of endometrial carcinoma. Objective: To determine the diagnostic yield of pipelle biopsy in detection of endometrial carcinoma in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Methodology: The current cross-sectional (Descriptive) study was carried out at the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology in Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar. The study duration was one years from December 2021 to December 2022. From all of the women who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, biopsy were performed on an outpatient basis. Performa developed for this study was used to record all the data. SPSS version 17.0 was used to input the data and evaluate the results. Results: A total of 107 women presenting with abnormal uterine bleeding were included in the study. Average age of the patients was 54.52 years with standard deviation of ±8.16. The Diagnostic yield in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding was observed in 99(92.52%). Conclusion: Our research shows that pipelle is a good device for diagnosing carcinoma in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Rauf R, Shaheen A, Sadia S, Waqar F, Zafar S, Sultana S, et al. Outpatient endometrial biopsy with Pipelle vs diagnostic dilatation and curettage. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad. 2014;26(2):145-8.

Sial N, Ahmad M, Hussain MS, Iqbal MJ, Hameed Y, Khan M, et al. CTHRC1 expression is a novel shared diagnostic and prognostic biomarker of survival in six different human cancer subtypes. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):19873.

Usman M, Hameed Y, Ahmad M, Iqbal MJ, Maryam A, Mazhar A, et al. SHMT2 is associated with tumor purity, CD8+ T immune cells infiltration, and a novel therapeutic target in four different human cancers. Current Molecular Medicine. 2023;23(2):161-76.

Williams A, Brechin S, Porter A, Warner P, Critchley H. Factors affecting adequacy of Pipelle and Tao Brush endometrial sampling. BJOG. 2008;115(8):1028-36.

Sial N, Rehman JU, Saeed S, Ahmad M, Hameed Y, Atif M, et al. Integrative analysis reveals methylenetetrahydrofolate dehydrogenase 1-like as an independent shared diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in five different human cancers. Bioscience Reports. 2022;42(1):BSR20211783.

Zhang L, Sahar A, Li C, Chaudhary A, Yousaf I, Saeedah M, et al. A detailed multi-omics analysis of GNB2 gene in human cancers. Brazilian Journal of Biology. 2022;84.

Usman M, Hameed Y, Ahmad M, Rehman JU, Ahmed H, Hussain MS, et al. Breast cancer risk and human papillomavirus infection: a Bradford Hill criteria based evaluation. Infectious Disorders-Drug Targets (Formerly Current Drug Targets-Infectious Disorders). 2022;22(4):41-50.

Hameed Y, Usman M, Liang S, Ejaz S. Novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers of colorectal cancer: capable to overcome the heterogeneity-specific barrier and valid for global applications. Plos one. 2021;16(9):e0256020.

Hameed Y, Usman M, Ahmad M. Does mouse mammary tumor-like virus cause human breast cancer? Applying Bradford Hill criteria postulates. Bulletin of the National Research Centre. 2020;44(1):1-13.

Zouzoulas O, Tsolakidis D, Efstratiou I, Pervana S, Pazarli E, Grimbizis G. Correlation between Adenomyosis and Endometrial cancer: 6-year experience of a single center. Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn. 2018;10(3):147.

Ullah L, Hameed Y, Ejaz S, Raashid A, Iqbal J, Ullah I, et al. Detection of novel infiltrating ductal carcinoma-associated BReast CAncer gene 2 mutations which alter the deoxyribonucleic acid-binding ability of BReast CAncer gene 2 protein. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2020;16(6):1402-7.

Usman M, Hameed Y, Ahmad M. Does human papillomavirus cause human colorectal cancer? Applying Bradford Hill criteria postulates. ecancermedicalscience. 2020;14.

Khan M, Hameed Y. Discovery of novel six genes-based cervical cancer-associated biomarkers that are capable to break the heterogeneity barrier and applicable at the global level. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2023.

Rasheed T, Yasmeen L. Effectiveness of pipelle as endometrial sampling procedure in comparison with dilatation and curettage. Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College. 2012;16(2).

Yasmin F, Farrukh R, Kamal F. Efficacy of pipelle as a tool for endometrial biopsy. Biomedica. 2007;23(July-December):116-9.

Dijkhuizen FPH, Mol BW, Brölmann HA, Heintz APM. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta‐analysis. Cancer. 2000;89(8):1765-72.

Zaman BS, Jabeen S, Rashid J. Frequency of positive endometrial pipelle biopsies in for detection of endometrial carcinoma in patients of civil hospital with abnormal uterine bleeding. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2013;7:743-7.

Choudry A, Javaid M. Clinical usefulness of Pipelle endometrial sampling. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal. 2005;55(2):122-5.

Fakhar S, Saeed G, Khan AH, Alam AY. Validity of pipelle endometrial sampling in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Ann Saudi Med. 2008;28(3):188-91.

Stock RJ, Kanbour A. Prehysterectomy curettage. Obstet Gynecol. 1975;45(5):537-41.

Stovall TG, Solomon SK, Ling FW. Endometrial sampling prior to hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73(3):405-9.

Kaunitz A, Masciello A, Ostrowski M, Rovira E. Comparison of endometrial biopsy with the endometrial Pipelle and Vabra aspirator. The Journal of reproductive medicine. 1988;33(5):427-31.

SILVER MM, Miles P, ROSA C. Comparison of Novak and Pipelle endometrial biopsy instruments. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78(5):828-30.

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(5):1287-90.

Stovall T, Photopulos G, Poston W, Ling F, Sandles L. Pipelle endometrial sampling in patients with known endometrial carcinoma. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 1992;38(2):147-8.

Stovall TG, Photopulos GJ, Poston WM, Ling FW, Sandles LG. Plpelle endometrial sampling in patients with known endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77(6):954-6.

Huang GS, Gebb JS, Einstein MH, Shahabi S, Novetsky AP, Goldberg GL. Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling for the detection of high-grade endometrial tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(3):243. e1-. e5.

Asif Zia A. Pipelle: an acceptable out-patient technique for endometrial biopsy. 1999.

Behnamfar F, Khamehchian T, Mazouchi T, Fahiminezhad T. Diagnostic value of endometrial sampling with Pipelle suction curettage for identifying endometrial lesions in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. 2004.

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):279-81.

Clark TJ, Mann CH, Shah N, Khan KS, Song F, Gupta JK. Accuracy of outpatient endometrial biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer: a systematic quantitative review. BJOG. 2002;109(3):313-21.