Concordance and Discordance of Endometrial Biopsy vs Hysterectomy Specimen Findings for the Diagnosis of Endometrial Cancer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30683/1927-7229.2025.14.06Keywords:
Concordance, Endometrial biopsy, Hysterectomy, Endometrial Cancer, GradingAbstract
Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common malignancy of uterus in the Western World. The literature shows a varied association between biopsy versus hysterectomy specimen findings. The objective of the study is to describe the concordance and discordance between endometrial biopsy vs hysterectomy specimens for the detection and grading of EC.
Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional analytical study. Data were reviewed from 2018 to 2021 from the departmental archive.
Results: The mean±SD of age was 55.4±9.6 years. The most common clinical feature was postmenopausal bleeding (45.4%). The overall concordance for diagnosis of EC was 59.1% between biopsy and hysterectomy. The highest concordance found for endometrioid carcinoma-NOS was 67.6%. Concordance for overall grading of endometrial cancer was 52.3%, and it was maximum for G1 (78.6%). The strength of association was mild to moderate (C= 0.379 to 0.592) between biopsy vs hysterectomy was significant with the Chi2 test. A biopsy had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 67.6%, 57.1%, 89.3%, and 25%, respectively, compared to hysterectomy for diagnosis of EC. Cohen’s Kappa test showed agreement between biopsy and hysterectomy was significant and moderate for the diagnosis EC (59.1%, k=0.1101) and for grading of EC (overall grading-52.2%, k=0.2925, architectural grading- 45.5% k=0.1156, nuclear grading 40.9%, k=0.1746).
Conclusion: Concordance/agreement between endometrial biopsy and hysterectomy was moderate for the diagnosis and grading of EC. The accuracy of biopsy is moderate in diagnosis of EC. We recommend endometrial biopsy as a minimally invasive surgical and cost-effective approach in resource-poor countries.
References
[1] Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, Timmerman D, Van Limbergen E, Vergote I. Endometrial cancer. Lancet 2005; 366: 491-505.
[2] Center for Disease Control and Prevention.United States cancer statistics: 1999-2014 incidence and mortality web-based report [database]. 2017. http: //www.cdc.gov/uscs Accessed April 15, 2018.
[3] Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM.Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010; 127(2): 2893-917.
[4] Balasubramaniam G, Sushama S, B Rasika, U Mahantshetty. Hospital-based Study of Endometrial Cancer Survival in Mumbai, India.Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013; 14: 977-80.
[5] Kacalska-Janssen O, Rajtar-Ciosek A, Zmaczyński A, et al. Markers of insulin resistance in perimenopausal women with endometrial pathology. Ginekol Pol 2013; 84: 922-929.
[6] Management of endometrial cancer. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 65.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 413-425.
[7] Gredmark T, Kvint S, Havel G, et al. Histopathologicalfindings in women with postmenopausal bleeding. BJOG 1995; 102: 133-136.
[8] Lacey JV Jr, Sherman ME, Rush BB, et al. Absolute risk of endometrial carcinoma during 20-year follow-up among women with endometrial hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 788-792.
[9] Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R, et al. Concurrentendometrialcarcinoma in women with a biopsydiagnosis of atypicalendometrialhyperplasia: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2006; 106: 812-819.
[10] Soslow RA,Tornos C, Park KJ, Malpica A, Guiu XM, Oliva E, et al. Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosis: Use of FIGO Grading and Genomic Subcategories in Clinical Practice: Recommendations of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.Int J Gynecol Pathol 2019; 38: S64-S74.
[11] Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, et al. Endometrial cancer. Lancet 2005; 366: 491-505.
[12] Sussman I, Prystowsky MB. Pathology service line: a model for accountable care organizations at an academic medical centre. Hum Pathol 2012; 43: 629-631.
[13] Robboy SJ, Weintraub S, Horvath AE, et al. Pathologistworkforce in the United States: I, development of a predictivemodel to examine factors influencing supply. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013; 137: 1723-1732.
[14] Gross DJ, Kennedy M, Kothari T, et al. The role of the pathologist in population health. Arch Pathol Lab Med.2019; 143: 610-620.
[15] Kisielewski F, Gajewska ME, Marczewska MJ, Panek G, Wielgoś M, Kamiński P. Comparison of endometrial biopsy and postoperative hysterectomy specimen findings in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Ginekologia Polska 2016; 87: 488-492.
[16] Bryant BH, Doughty E, Kalof AN. Selective vs Complete Sampling in Hysterectomy Specimens Performed for Atypical Hyperplasia. Am J Clin Pathol 2019; XX: 1-9.
[17] Wang X, Huang Z, Di W, Lin Q. Comparison of D & C and hysterectomy pathologic findings in endometrial cancer patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005: 272: 136-141.
[18] Petersen RW, Quinlivan JA, Casperl GR, Nicklid JL. Endometrial adenocarcinoma - presenting pathology is a poor guide to surgical management. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynoecol 2000; 40 (2): 191-194.
[19] Engel JS, Tran J, Khalil N. A systematic review of perioperative clinical practice guidelines for care of older adults living with frailty. Bri J of Anes 2023; 130(3): 262-271.
[20] Yasen Z, Robinson AP, Woffenden H.Advanced Preoperative Planning Techniques in the Management of Complex proximal Humerus Fractures. Cureus 2024; 16(1): e51551.
[21] Vorgias G, Lekka J, Katsoulis M, Varhalama E, Kalinoglou N, Akrivos T. Diagnostic accuracy of prehysterectomy curettage in determining tumour type and grade in patients with endometrial cancer. Med Gen Med 2003; 5(4): 7. PMID: 14745354.
[22] AI Nemer AM, Al Bayat MI, Al Qahtani NH.The accuracy of endometrial sampling for the diagnosis of patterns of endometrial pathology in women presenting with abnormal uterine bleeding. More conservative therapeutic approaches. Saudi Med J 2019; 40 (8): 815-819.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Similar Articles
- Abdellatif Janane , Fouad Hajji, Youssef Dakkak, Mohamed Ghadouane, Ahmed Ameur, Mohamed Abbar, Abderhman Albouzidi, Gleason Score Discrepancies Between Needle Biopsies and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens in an African Men: Clinical Implication , Journal of Analytical Oncology: Vol. 2 No. 3 (2013)
- Mutlu Deger, Volkan Izol, Fatih Gokalp, Yildirim Bayazit, I. Atilla Aridogan, Zuhtu Tansug, Evaluation of Concordance between Gleason Scores of Tansrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Samples in Prostate Cancer , Journal of Analytical Oncology: Vol. 7 No. 1 (2018)
- Mehrzad Lotfi, Naghmeh Roshan , Amin Abolhasani Foroughi, Comparison of Prostate Specific Antigen and Prostate Specific Antigen Density for Predicting the Degree of Gleason Score of Prostate Cancer , Journal of Analytical Oncology: Vol. 4 No. 1 (2015)
- Hassan Akbari, Farzad Taghizadeh Hesary, Laya Rahnar Nikoukar, Distribution of Breast Cancer Biomarkers by Age in Iran , Journal of Analytical Oncology: Vol. 6 No. 1 (2017)
- Ashraf Talaat Youssef, Local Staging of Prostate Cancer Using Three Dimensional (3D) Transrectal Ultrasound Assisted with Power Doppler Capability , Journal of Analytical Oncology: Vol. 6 No. 1 (2017)
- Armel HerveNwabo Kamdje, Georges Kalgong, Paul Takam Kamga, Richard Simo Tagne, Jeremie Mbo Amvene, Charlette Nangue, Knowledge and Behavior of Women on Cervical Cancer in the Northern Region of Cameroon , Journal of Analytical Oncology: Vol. 6 No. 3 (2017)
- Antonio Carrera Torres, Ángel Martínez-Sahuquillo Márquez, Isabel Gallardo Castillo, María José Cobos Fuentes, José Ramón Armas Padrón, Viability of Whole Tissue Microbiopsy (WTM) for the Study and Management of Oral Leukoplakia , Journal of Analytical Oncology: Vol. 5 No. 4 (2016)
- A. Espiau Romera, L. Baquedano Mainar, M.J. Puente Luján, R. Laborda Gotor, L. Ruiz Campo, M.A. Ruiz Conde, Preoperative HE4 Tumor Marker and Prognostic Factors in Endometrial Cancer: Review Article , Journal of Analytical Oncology: Vol. 8 (2019)
- Ravoori Harish Babu, Amritha Prabha Shankar, Geeta S. Narayanan, Ganesh M. Subramanya, B.R. Kiran Kumar, Association of Level III Axillary Lymph Node Positivity with Clinicopathological Characteristics in Breast Cancer , Journal of Analytical Oncology: Vol. 13 (2024)
- Herve Kada Pabame , Richard Tagne Simo, Armel Herve Nwabo Kamdje, Louis Deweerdt, Guillaume Gayma, Franklin Danki Sillong, Interests in the use of Rapid Prostate Antigen Screening Test in the North-Cameroon , Journal of Analytical Oncology: Vol. 7 No. 3 (2018)
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.