Office endometrial sampling: effectiveness and predictive factors of success in Novak versus Endosampler devices.

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Minerva obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2023-11-28 DOI:10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05358-7
M Carolina Carneiro, Patrícia G Ferreira, Susana M Saraiva, Cátia D Rodrigues, Susana Leitão, Cristina M Costa, Maria da Soledade Ferreira
{"title":"Office endometrial sampling: effectiveness and predictive factors of success in Novak versus Endosampler devices.","authors":"M Carolina Carneiro, Patrícia G Ferreira, Susana M Saraiva, Cátia D Rodrigues, Susana Leitão, Cristina M Costa, Maria da Soledade Ferreira","doi":"10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05358-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The study aimed to evaluate the rate of endometrial sampling (ES) failure, predictive factors of success, and reliability as diagnostic methods of Endosampler versus Novak.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective single-center study was carried out with all patients who underwent ES via Endosampler or Novak in 2020 and 2021. Demographic data, personal background, and histopathologic results were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-six patients underwent ES by Novak and 90 by Endosampler. The failure rate of ES was 43.2% with lower values for Endosampler (33.3% vs. 53.5%, P<0.05). Age, biopsy device, menopausal status, indication for biopsy, and amount of sample collected were predictive factors of failure. Analyzing each device, Endosampler was only affected by menopausal status. Only 50% in Novak and 62.5% in the Endosampler group of endometrial neoplasia cases were detected by these methods. Analyzing the performance for endometrial neoplasia (EN), we obtained higher values of sensitivity and accuracy for Endosampler (62.5% vs. 50.0% and 83.3% vs. 72.7%), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In our study, the failure rate obtained was in line with other previous studies. Menopausal status, age, type of biopsy device, indication for biopsy, and amount of sample collected affected ES performance. Analyzing diagnostic performance for EN, we found that these methods have better reliability for positive results than for negative ones, which may indicate the need for further evaluation in cases of high clinical suspicion. In short, we obtain a higher rate of success rate in Endosampler devices and better performance in diagnosing EN, which is the major objective of an ES.</p>","PeriodicalId":18572,"journal":{"name":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05358-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The study aimed to evaluate the rate of endometrial sampling (ES) failure, predictive factors of success, and reliability as diagnostic methods of Endosampler versus Novak.

Methods: A retrospective single-center study was carried out with all patients who underwent ES via Endosampler or Novak in 2020 and 2021. Demographic data, personal background, and histopathologic results were evaluated.

Results: Eighty-six patients underwent ES by Novak and 90 by Endosampler. The failure rate of ES was 43.2% with lower values for Endosampler (33.3% vs. 53.5%, P<0.05). Age, biopsy device, menopausal status, indication for biopsy, and amount of sample collected were predictive factors of failure. Analyzing each device, Endosampler was only affected by menopausal status. Only 50% in Novak and 62.5% in the Endosampler group of endometrial neoplasia cases were detected by these methods. Analyzing the performance for endometrial neoplasia (EN), we obtained higher values of sensitivity and accuracy for Endosampler (62.5% vs. 50.0% and 83.3% vs. 72.7%), respectively.

Conclusions: In our study, the failure rate obtained was in line with other previous studies. Menopausal status, age, type of biopsy device, indication for biopsy, and amount of sample collected affected ES performance. Analyzing diagnostic performance for EN, we found that these methods have better reliability for positive results than for negative ones, which may indicate the need for further evaluation in cases of high clinical suspicion. In short, we obtain a higher rate of success rate in Endosampler devices and better performance in diagnosing EN, which is the major objective of an ES.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
办公室子宫内膜取样:Novak和Endosampler装置成功的有效性和预测因素。
背景:本研究旨在评估子宫内膜取样(ES)失败率,成功的预测因素,以及作为Endosampler与Novak诊断方法的可靠性。方法:对2020年和2021年通过Endosampler或Novak接受ES治疗的所有患者进行回顾性单中心研究。对人口统计资料、个人背景和组织病理学结果进行评估。结果:86例采用Novak法,90例采用Endosampler法。ES的不合格率为43.2%,而Endosampler的不合格率更低(33.3% vs. 53.5%)。结论:在我们的研究中,得到的不合格率与其他研究一致。绝经状态、年龄、活检设备类型、活检适应症和采集的样本量影响ES的表现。通过对EN的诊断性能分析,我们发现这些方法对阳性结果的可靠性高于阴性结果,这可能表明在临床高度怀疑的病例中需要进一步评估。总之,我们在Endosampler设备上获得了更高的成功率和更好的诊断EN的性能,这是ES的主要目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
191
期刊最新文献
Clinical features and their associations with umbilical cord gas abnormalities. Computerized cardiotocography and fetal heart response to maternal coffee intake: a prospective study. New characteristics of polycystic ovary syndrome phenotypes according to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-based study of urinary steroid metabolome. Dysgerminoma of the ovary. Racial and ethnic disparities in non-invasive prenatal testing adherence: a retrospective cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1