|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: liability of US Endometrial ThicknessFrom: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)Tue Mar 21 13:21:17 2000
Joanne - definitely sounds like a false positive to me. when Goldstein first suggested the 5 mm as a cut-off in the other direction - in other words, women with PMB who had EM's measuring < 5 mm were NOT found to have path in his series and he suggested that they might not need to be subjected to the reflex biopsy that was/is the standard diagnostic test. what happened is that this has now somehow evolved into a screen in the other direction so that any EM measurement ABOVE 5 mm is somehow regarded as evidence of pathology. ultrasound is simply a screening test here, NOT a diagnostic test. the sonar suggests that something is there but it doesn't necessarily tell what it is. in your case, you simply triaged this woman into a group with increased risk, similar to Down's syndrome serum screening. here's a reference which might be more helpful than my musing. Maturitas 1999 Oct 24;33(2):139-44 Transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy in postmenopausal uterine bleeding. Loverro G, Bettocchi S, Cormio G, Nicolardi V, Greco P, Vimercati A, Selvaggi L II Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Bari, Italy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound and hysteroscopy in the detection of endometrial pathologies in women with postmenopausal bleeding not using hormonal replacement therapy (HRT). METHODS: Between January 1997 and April 1998, 106 postmenopausal women with uterine bleeding not using HRT underwent a diagnostic work-up including pelvic examination, transvaginal ultrasound, hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy. Sonographic measurement of endometrial thickness and hysteroscopic findings were compared with histological results. The 'classification tree' method was used to identify cut-off values of sonographic endometrial thickness that could be indicative of a class of uterine pathology. Statistical analysis was performed with the McNemar test. RESULTS: No case of endometrial cancer was found with a cut-off point of 5 mm of endometrial thickness evaluated by ultrasound, whereas all patients with endometrial thickness > or = 15 mm at sonography had an endometrial carcinoma. In the group of patients with endometrial thickness between 6 and 14 mm, we found normal atrophic endometria, benign and malignant pathology. On the other hand, the McNemar test showed a very good correspondence between hysteroscopy and histology (sensitivity 97.5% and specificity 100%), confirming its usefulness in diagnosis of postmenopausal uterine bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal ultrasound has revealed some limitations, mainly in the group of patients with endometrial thickness between 6 and 14 mm. The absence of endometrial malignancy in women with endometrial thickness < or = 5 mm and the high possibility of cancer in those with endometrial thickness > or = 15 mm should be confirmed in larger series. Hysteroscopy proved to be a simple and safe outpatient procedure with a high diagnostic accuracy, and in our opinion it should be considered in all women with postmenopausal uterine bleeding. glad your patient did not have cancer. Art PS i can't explain why your patient's sono looked the way it did.
At Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Joanne Bulley, MD wrote:
>
-- art fougner, md
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 04:46:01 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.