Dataset Information

Endometrial sampling in low-risk patients with abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

One million women per year seek medical advice for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) in the United Kingdom. Many low-risk patients who could be managed exclusively in primary care are referred to hospital based gynaecology services. Performing endometrial sampling (ES) in the community may improve care, reduce the rate of referrals and minimise costs. We aimed to search and synthesise the literature on the effectiveness of ES (Pipelle versus other devices) in managing AUB in low-risk patients.

Methods

We undertook an electronic literature search in MEDLINE via OvidSP, Scopus, and Web of Science for relevant English-language articles from 1984 to 2016 using a combination of MeSH and keywords. Two reviewers independently pre-selected 317 articles and agreed on 60 articles reporting data from over 7300 patients. Five themes were identified: sample adequacy, test performance, pain and discomfort, cost-effectiveness, and barriers and complications of office ES.

Results

Pipelle seems to perform as well as dilation and curettage and, as well or better than other ES devices in terms of sampling adequacy and sensitivity. It also seems to be better regarding pain/discomfort and costs. However, Pipelle can disrupt the sonographic appearance of the endometrium and may be limited by cervical stenosis, pelvic organ prolapse and endometrial atrophy.

Conclusions

The current evidence supports the use of Pipelle in the management of low-risk women presenting in the outpatient setting with symptomatic AUB when combined with clinical assessment and ultrasound scanning. However, the implications of its widespread use in primary care are uncertain and more research is required.

SUBMITTER: Narice BF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6066914 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAs the worldwide burden of endometrial cancer continues to rise, interest is growing in the evaluation of early detection and prevention strategies among women at increased risk. Focusing efforts on women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB), a common symptom of endometrial cancer, may be a useful strategy; however, PMB is not specific for endometrial cancer and is often caused by benign conditions.ObjectiveTo provide a reference of the prevalence of PMB in endometrial cancers and the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB.Data sourcesFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed and Embase were searched for English-language studies published January 1, 1977, through January 31, 2017.Study selectionObservational studies reporting the prevalence of PMB in women with endometrial cancer and the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB in unselected populations were selected.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers evaluated study quality and risk of bias using items from the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Studies that included highly selected populations, lacked detailed inclusion criteria, and/or included 25 or fewer women were excluded.Main outcomes and measuresThe pooled prevalence of PMB in women with endometrial cancer and the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB.ResultsA total of 129 unique studies, including 34 432 unique patients with PMB and 6358 with endometrial cancer (40 790 women), were analyzed. The pooled prevalence of PMB among women with endometrial cancer was 91% (95% CI, 87%-93%), irrespective of tumor stage. The pooled risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB was 9% (95% CI, 8%-11%), with estimates varying by use of hormone therapy (range, 7% [95% CI, 6%-9%] to 12% [95% CI, 9%-15%]; P < .001 for heterogeneity) and geographic region (range, 5% [95% CI, 3%-11%] in North America to 13% [95% CI, 9%-19%] in Western Europe; P = .09 for heterogeneity).Conclusions and relevanceEarly detection strategies focused on women with PMB have the potential to capture as many as 90% of endometrial cancers; however, most women with PMB will not be diagnosed with endometrial cancer. These results can aid in the assessment of the potential clinical value of new early detection markers and clinical management strategies for endometrial cancer and will help to inform clinical and epidemiologic risk prediction models to support decision making.

Project description:BackgroundElagolix is effective and safe for treating menorrhagia in women with uterine fibroid. However, it is reported to be associated with hypoestrogenism that can be alleviated by adding estradiol/norethindrone acetate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of elagolix treatment in women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroid by comparing: elagolix versus placebo and elagolix versus estradiol/norethindrone acetate.MethodologyThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2021, Issue 3 of 12), MEDLINE databases (1980 to December week 1, 2020), and trial registries for relevant randomized clinical trials were used. All randomized clinical trials were reviewed and evaluated. Random effects models were used to estimate the dichotomous outcomes and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Data for risk of bias, heterogeneity, sensitivity, reporting bias and quality of evidence were assessed.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials with 1949 premenopausal women from 323 locations were included. Elagolix improved menstrual blood loss of less than 80 ml (RR 4.81, 95% CI 2.45 to 9.45; four trials, 869 participants; moderate quality evidence) or more than 50% reduction from baseline (RR 4.87, 95% CI 2.55 to 9.31; four trials, 869 participants; moderate quality evidence) compared to placebo. There was no difference in menstrual blood loss of less than 80 ml (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.16; five trials, 1365 participants; moderate quality evidence) or more than 50% reduction from baseline between the elagolix (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.15; five trials, 1365 participants; high quality evidence) and elagolix with estradiol/norethindrone acetate. In both comparisons, elagolix has reduced the mean percentage change in uterine and fibroid volume, improved symptoms, and health-related quality of life. More patients had hot flush, and bone mineral density loss in the elagolix treatment compared to both placebo and elagolix with estradiol/norethindrone acetate.ConclusionsElagolix appeared to be effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding caused by uterine fibroid and combination with estradiol/norethindrone acetate was able to alleviate the hypoestrogenism side effects in premenopausal women. Review registration PROSPERO CDR 42021233898.