 |
|
Endovaginal Ultrasound to Exclude Endometrial Cancer and Other Endometrial Abnormalities
Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD;
Karla Kerlikowske, MD;
Vickie A. Feldstein, MD;
Leslee Subak, MD;
Juergen Scheidler, MD;
Mark Segal, PhD;
Richard Brand, PhD;
Deborah Grady, MD
JAMA. 1998;280:1510-1517.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context.— Postmenopausal vaginal bleeding is a common clinical problem. Endovaginal ultrasound (EVUS) is a noninvasive diagnostic test that may help determine which women should undergo endometrial biopsy.
Objective.— To determine the accuracy of EVUS in detecting endometrial disease in postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding according to hormone replacement use.
Data Sources.— Literature search of English-language and non–English-language articles published from 1966 through November 1996 using MEDLINE and by a manual search of bibliographies of published articles.
Study Selection.— Studies were included if they prospectively collected EVUS measurements of endometrial thickness prior to obtaining endometrial tissue for histologic evaluation in postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding. Of 85 studies that included data on EVUS and endometrial histology, 35 were included in the meta-analysis and included 5892 women.
Data Extraction.— Articles were reviewed and independently selected and abstracted by 2 reviewers. Disagreement was resolved by consensus.
Data Synthesis.— The overall summary mean weighted estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated for thresholds of endometrial thickness from 3 to 10 mm. Using a 5-mm threshold to define abnormal endometrial thickening, 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94%-98%) of women with cancer had an abnormal EVUS result, whereas 92% (95% CI, 90%-93%) of women with endometrial disease (cancer, polyp, or atypical hyperplasia) had an abnormal result. This did not vary by hormone replacement use. However, the number of women with normal histology who had an abnormal EVUS result did vary by hormone replacement use. In women who were not using hormone replacement therapy, 593 (8%) with normal histological findings had an abnormal EVUS result (specificity, 92%; 95% CI, 90%-94%), whereas 1544 (23%) using hormone replacement therapy had an abnormal EVUS result (specificity, 77%; 95% CI, 75%-79%). For a postmenopausal woman with vaginal bleeding with a 10% pretest probability of endometrial cancer, her probability of cancer is 1% following a normal EVUS result.
Conclusion.— Endovaginal ultrasound has a high sensitivity for detecting endometrial cancer and other endometrial disease and can reliably identify postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding who are highly unlikely to have significant endometrial disease so that endometrial sampling may be unnecessary.
INTRODUCTION
ENDOMETRIAL cancer is the fourth most common malignancy in women in the United States, with more than 36000 cases and 6300 deaths occurring annually.1 The majority of women with endometrial cancer are postmenopausal and present with vaginal bleeding. In most women with abnormal vaginal bleeding, endometrial sampling with an endometrial biopsy or dilatation and curettage is performed. Endometrial cancer has been detected in 5% to 60% of postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding, depending on age and other risk factors.2-5 Office-based endometrial biopsy techniques are uncomfortable,4, 6-7 cannot be performed or are nondiagnostic in 2% to 28% of attempts,4-6,8-12 and often yield an inaccurate diagnosis, particularly for women with endometrial polyps.13-14
During the last decade, endovaginal ultrasound (EVUS) has become widely used to evaluate the endometrium in postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding. Endovaginal ultrasound uses an ultrasound probe that is placed directly in the vagina to obtain detailed images of the endometrium. Thin endometrium is generally considered normal, whereas thickened endometrium may represent cancer, hyperplasia, or polyps. The chief goal of an EVUS examination of the endometrium is to exclude pathological conditions and thereby make endometrial sampling unnecessary.
Many published studies have assessed the accuracy of EVUS in evaluating the endometrium for malignancy.3, 11, 13-39 40-71 72-96 While it has been suggested that cancer can be excluded with a high degree of confidence when the endometrial thickness is less than 3 mm, a few studies have reported cancer in women with a thin endometrial measurement.17, 38, 79 However, most studies of the diagnostic accuracy of EVUS have been small and included few women with cancer. Additionally, studies applied different thresholds of endometrial thickness for calling an EVUS result abnormal and many have not reported the results separately in women receiving hormone replacement therapy.
To enhance the precision of estimates of the accuracy of EVUS, we conducted a critical review of the literature and used meta-analytic techniques to determine the accuracy of EVUS in diagnosing endometrial pathological conditions in postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding according to hormone replacement therapy use. Our main goal was to determine if EVUS can reliably identify women who are highly unlikely to have significant endometrial disease and therefore need no further evaluation.
METHODS
Data Sources
We performed a literature search using the MEDLINE database of all studies published from January 1966 through November 1996 and manually searched bibliographies of published articles. MEDLINE search terms included endometrium, endometrial cancer, ultrasound, endovaginal ultrasound, transvaginal ultrasound, vaginal bleeding, dilatation and curettage, and endometrial biopsy. Review articles, letters, case reports, and comments were excluded. English-language and non–English-language articles were included. We identified 85 studies that included data on EVUS and endometrial sampling. Of these, 12 were in German, 5 Italian, 3 French, 1 Chinese, 1 Dutch, and the remainder in the English language.
Study Selection
Articles were independently selected and reviewed by 2 reviewers. Studies that prospectively evaluated EVUS on patients prior to obtaining endometrial tissue (endometrial biopsy, dilatation and curettage, or hysterectomy) were included. Retrospective studies,19, 33-34,62, 72, 77 studies with selective histological sampling,23-24,29, 39, 52, 62, 69 studies that reported results pooled for premenopausal and postmenopausal women,42, 71, 84, 97 and studies that measured endometrial thickness following tissue sampling13, 17, 23, 42, 49, 58, 62 were excluded. In addition, studies that evaluated EVUS only in asymptomatic women,16, 35, 67, 69, 81, 93, 98-99 women receiving tamoxifen,31-32,51, 56, 59, 75 and women with known endometrial cancer43, 58, 100-101; studies not reporting endovaginal thickness measurements15, 26, 52, 71-72,74, 76-77; and studies where the crude data could not be extracted19, 21, 24, 39, 42, 48, 52, 72, 81, 85, 97 were excluded. When we could not extract data from published articles, we wrote to the corresponding author to obtain additional information (18 authors, 5 of whom responded). Additional nonpublished results were obtained from 2 authors, and these are included in our analysis with published results by the same authors.20, 61 For studies that resulted in multiple publications, data from the most recent publication were used.34, 69
Data Abstraction
We defined endometrial thickness as the width of the combined thickness of the anterior and posterior sides of the endometrium. When a single-wall measurement was reported, we doubled the measurement. Three outcomes were considered: cancer, benign endometrial abnormalities (atypical and complex hyperplasia or polyps), and normal (atrophy, normal). Endometrial disease was defined as including cancer and benign endometrial abnormalities. Within each study, cases of cervical cancer and cervical polyps were excluded. For each outcome, 2 authors abstracted and recorded the number of true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative cases using all reported thickness thresholds (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 mm). We also abstracted the mean endometrial thickness among women with atrophic endometrium, hyperplasia or polyps, and cancer. For each study we also recorded mean age, the number of women using hormone replacement therapy, the number of women with vaginal bleeding, frequency of the ultrasound probe, whether fluid within the endometrial cavity was included, and whether "<" or " " was considered as the dividing point between normal and abnormal. We also recorded the number of women who could not tolerate or who had a nondiagnostic EVUS result. Discrepancies among reviewers were resolved by consensus.
Data Synthesis
For each study, the sensitivity, specificity, and exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all EVUS thickness measurements. When studies did not explicitly state hormone replacement therapy use,16, 53-54,63, 70, 80, 83, 90 we analyzed these articles with those that included women using hormone replacement therapy, as we assumed some women may have been using hormone replacement therapy. In the studies that included women using hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of these women varied from 3% to 60%.
Studies used endometrial thickness measurements of 3 to 10 mm to define an abnormal EVUS test result. Before we combined the results across studies, we tested whether there was a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity for each thickness threshold.102 We found there was no correlation of sensitivity and specificity within any of the individual thickness measurements used to define abnormal (for example, 5 mm) across the different studies. Therefore, we calculated mean weighted pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for each threshold, for any endometrial disease, and for cancer alone.
The summary estimates were calculated as a weighted average. Individual study findings were weighted by sample size. For example, the summary weighted sensitivity was calculated as the sum of the sensitivities reported for each study multiplied by the number of subjects in that study, divided by the total number of subjects in all of the studies:  [(sensitivityi)(ni)]/(n1+n2+ . . . ni). Sensitivity for cancer was weighted by the number of cases of cancer, sensitivity for endometrial disease was weighted by the number of endometrial abnormalities, and specificity was weighted by the number of normal women without endometrial abnormalities. The 95% CIs for the mean weighted results were calculated using exact methods.
A test for homogeneity was performed to evaluate the consistency of findings across studies. We used the CIs of the individual study findings to determine if the results were homogeneous; if the 95% CI from a study did not overlap the weighted summary point estimate, the result of that study was considered heterogeneous.103 Possible reasons for heterogeneity, such as whether the study was published in the English languge or a non–English language, use of hormone replacement therapy, patient symptoms, whether fluid within the endometrial cavity was included or excluded in determining endometrial thickness, and specialty of the examiner were studied by stratifying the summary estimate according to these factors to determine if homogeneity improved.
Positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each endometrial thickness. The posttest risk of endometrial disease was calculated using the 5-mm-thickness threshold, varying the pretest risk of disease from 1% to 50%. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was generated using the data from all thresholds using the method of Moses and colleagues104 to combine the results across the range of endometrial thicknesses. We tested for differences between the summary ROC curves of women who used hormone replacement therapy and women who did not. We also tested for differences between the summary ROC curves of women who used hormone replacement therapy and women in whom hormone replacement therapy use was not stated.
We excluded many studies on the basis of methodologic criteria. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine if including these studies would have had a significant impact on the overall results. All studies that were excluded were included in the sensitivity analysis if data could be extracted (n=8), except studies that evaluated EVUS in asymptomatic women as a screening test for cancer and studies that evaluated EVUS in women receiving tamoxifen.
RESULTS
A total of 35 studies (14 non–English language) including 5892 women met inclusion criteria (Table 1). The mean age of the women was 61 years, and 94% were symptomatic with vaginal bleeding. The prevalence of endometrial cancer was 13% and of endometrial polyps or hyperplasia 40%. Within the studies that included women using hormone replacement therapy, 471 (26%) of the 1781 women were currently using such therapy. Sixteen studies reported the number of women who could not tolerate EVUS (mean, 0; SD, 2%) and 14 studies reported the number of women who had a nondiagnostic EVUS result (mean, 0; SD, 2%).
|
|
|
|
Table 1.—Prospective Studies Comparing Endovaginal Ultrasound Measurements With Endometrial Histology in Postmenopausal Women Included in Meta-analysis
|
|
|
The mean (SD) endometrial thickness was 4 (1) mm for women with normal histological findings, 10 (3) mm for women with endometrial polyps, 14 (4) mm for women with hyperplasia, and 20 (6) mm for women with cancer.
Sensitivity
Endovaginal ultrasound was better at detecting cancer than it was at detecting polyps or hyperplasia (Table 2). For example, using a 5-mm threshold, 96% (95% CI, 94%-98%) of women with cancer had an abnormal EVUS result, whereas 92% (95% CI, 90%-93%) of women with endometrial disease had an abnormal EVUS result. Endovaginal ultrasound was equally accurate at identifying women with endometrial disease regardless of whether they were using hormone replacement therapy (Table 3). For example, at a 5-mm thickness, EVUS identified 95% (95% CI, 93%-97%) of endometrial disease among women not using hormone replacement therapy, and 91% (95% CI, 89%-93%) of endometrial disease among women who were using hormone replacement therapy.
|
|
|
|
Table 2.—Summary Sensitivity and Specificity for Endometrial Disease and Cancer Using Different Endovaginal Thickness Measurements to Define an Abnormal Result*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3.—Accuracy of Endovaginal Ultrasound for Detecting Endometrial Disease, Stratified by Hormone Replacement Therapy at Various Endometrial Thickness Thresholds*
|
|
|
Specificity
In general, specificity was higher for endometrial disease than cancer (Table 2). For all endometrial thickness thresholds tested, specificity was better among women who did not use hormone replacement therapy (Table 3). For example, using a 5-mm thickness, among women with normal histological findings, 23% (95% CI, 21%-25%) of women using hormone replacement therapy had an abnormal EVUS result, whereas only 8% (95% CI, 6%-10%) of women who were not using hormone replacement therapy had an abnormal EVUS result.
Homogeneity
The estimates for sensitivity were highly consistent across studies. For example, for the outcome of cancer, using the 5-mm thickness, the studies were homogeneous. For the outcome of any endometrial disease, 2 of 20 studies were heterogeneous (Figure 1, A). In contrast, the specificity estimates were inconsistent across studies. For example, at a thickness threshold of 5 mm, 7 of the 20 articles were heterogeneous for the outcome of cancer, and 8 of the 20 articles were heterogeneous for the outcome of any endometrial disease (Figure 1, B). The estimates of specificity became less heterogeneous when the studies were stratified by use of hormone replacement therapy (Figure 2, A, and Figure 2, B). Heterogeneity improved among women who were not using hormone replacement therapy (Figure 2, A) but remained among women who used hormone replacement therapy (Figure 2, B). Stratifying by other factors, including whether studies were English language or non–English language, patient symptoms, specialty of the examiner, whether fluid was included or excluded from the endometrial thickness measurement, whether a single or double wall measurement was used, and whether "<" or "" was used as the upper limit of normal did not improve consistency across studies.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1.—Sensitivity (A) and specificity (B) for endometrial disease using a 5-mm endometrial thickness. CI indicates confidence interval. The vertical line represents the summary estimate (95% CI).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2.—Specificity for endometrial disease (A, without hormone replacement therapy; B, with horomone replacement therapy) using a 5-mm endometrial thickness. CI indicates confidence interval. The vertical line represents the summary estimate (95% CI).
|
|
|
Summary ROC Curves
Changing the threshold of endometrial thickness used to define an abnormal examination resulted in the expected trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. (There was no trade-off within the individual thickness thresholds.) By increasing the thickness used to define an abnormal EVUS result, more abnormalities were missed, but there were fewer false-positives (Table 2). For example, at a 3-mm cutoff, the test detected 98% of women with endometrial disease, but identified 38% of women with normal histological findings as abnormal. At a 10-mm thickness the test detected fewer women with disease (66%) and identified fewer women with normal histological findings as abnormal (12%). In general, EVUS was more accurate in women who were not using hormone replacement therapy (Table 3).
The summary ROCs that combine data from all of the thickness thresholds were significantly different between women who were using hormone replacement therapy and women who were not (P=.02; Figure 3), and there was greater accuracy among women who were not using hormone replacement therapy. The summary ROCs were not significantly different among women who were using hormone replacement therapy and women in whom hormone replacement therapy use was not stated (P=.36).
|
|
|
|
Figure 3.—Summary receiver operating curves stratified by hormone replacement therapy use.
|
|
|
Positive and Negative Likelihood Ratios and the Risk of Abnormality
Because the sensitivity of EVUS did not vary significantly with hormone use, EVUS is equally accurate in excluding endometrial disease regardless of hormone use. For example, at a 5-mm threshold, the negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 for women who did not use hormone replacement therapy and 0.12 for women who used hormone replacement (Table 3). Thus, a woman with a 10% pretest probability of endometrial disease has a 1% risk of disease following a normal EVUS result (Table 4). Because specificity of EVUS varied with hormone use, the ability of EVUS to predict endometrial disease varies by hormone therapy use. At a 5-mm threshold, the positive likelihood ratio was 11.9 among women who did not use hormone replacement but only 4.0 among women who used hormone replacement (Table 3). Thus, a woman with a 10% pretest probability of any endometrial disease has a 57% risk of disease following an abnormal EVUS result if she is not using hormone replacement therapy but only a 31% risk of disease if she is using hormone replacement therapy (Table 4). The risk of having endometrial disease following a normal and abnormal EVUS result is shown for a range of pretest probabilities (Table 4).
|
|
|
|
Table 4.—Risk of a Woman Having Endometrial Disease Following an Endovaginal Ultrasound (EVUS) Using a Cutoff of 5 mm to Define an Abnormal Test Result, Stratified by Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Use and Pretest Probability of Disease*
|
|
|
Sensitivity Analysis
Inclusion of results from excluded studies had little impact. For example, at a threshold of 5 mm, the sensitivity for cancer alone was 96% among the included studies (n=457) and was 95% among the excluded studies (n=75). Similarly at 5 mm, the specificity for cancer alone was 61% among the included studies (n=2986) and was 59% among the excluded studies (n=719). One study contributed approximately 25% of the patients to the pooled results.55 When the findings of this article were eliminated, the results changed slightly; the sensitivity for endometrial disease decreased from 92% to 88%, and the sensitivity for cancer alone decreased from 96% to 95%.
COMMENT
We found that EVUS is a sensitive test for detecting endometrial disease. Using a thickness of 5 mm, the sensitivity for detecting any endometrial disease was 92%, and the sensitivity for detecting cancer was 96%. These estimates did not vary by use of hormone replacement therapy. The high sensitivity of EVUS makes it an excellent noninvasive test for determining which women with vaginal bleeding do not require endometrial biopsy. The specificity is low, and thus ultrasound is not very accurate in predicting endometrial disease. Therefore, an abnormal EVUS result in a woman with vaginal bleeding needs to be followed by a histological biopsy.
Like all techniques, EVUS imaging will fail to detect cancer and other abnormalities in some women. However, a false-negative rate of 8% must be compared with endometrial biopsy techniques. Office-based endometrial biopsy devices, the most commonly used means to sample the endometrium, have false-negative rates of 5% to 15%,4-7,105-107 and dilation and curettage, an invasive procedure, has false-negative rates of 2% to 6%.106, 108-111 It is not surprising that EVUS misses fewer abnormalities than office-based endometrial biopsy because ultrasound imaging allows visualization of the entire endometrial cavity, whereas most biopsy techniques rely on blind sampling.7, 105-106,109-111 This meta-analysis suggests that the sensitivity of EVUS is at least as good as office-based endometrial biopsy techniques.
There are several benefits of EVUS compared with endometrial biopsy. Endovaginal ultrasound is less invasive, well tolerated, generally painless, without complications, and nondiagnostic in a small percentage of cases. Some women cannot undergo successful office endometrial biopsy secondary to cervical stenosis because of a small introitus, pain, or intolerance of the procedure. An invasive dilatation and curettage is then required to obtain a diagnosis. Postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding often undergo multiple biopsies, because insufficient tissue is obtained for diagnosis or because of recurrent bleeding.40 A negative EVUS could reduce the need to undergo multiple biopsies. Endovaginal ultrasound is well suited to evaluate persistent bleeding despite a histological diagnosis of atrophy. A thin endovaginal thickness measurement supports the diagnosis of atrophy, whereas a thickened measurement would suggest that there was inadequate sampling of the endometrium and that a pathologic diagnosis may have been missed.13-14 Lastly, the cost of EVUS has compared favorably with endometrial biopsy in the evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding.12
Ultrasound cannot discriminate between proliferative endometrium, benign endometrial disease, and cancer, all of which cause an increase in endometrial thickness. Because postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy may cause proliferation of the endometrium, EVUS is less specific in women using hormone replacement therapy. The fact that different regimens of estrogen and progestins affect the endometrium differently may account for the variability in reported specificity of EVUS in women using hormone replacement therapy. Additionally, the different rates of reported hormone replacement therapy use may have contributed to the variability in reported specificity. It is possible that if 100% of the women were using hormone replacement therapy that the specificity would be substantially less than we report.
Fewer than half of the studies reported the rate of nondiagnostic EVUS examinations. A nondiagnostic test may occur more often in women with invasive carcinoma in whom the endometrial cavity can be difficult to visualize. In cases where the endometrium is incompletely visualized, it is important for the examination to be interpreted as nondiagnostic. In these cases, dilation and curettage, hysteroscopy, sonohysterography, or magnetic resonance imaging can be performed to further evaluate the endometrium.
Positive and negative likelihood ratios can be used to estimate a patient's posttest probability of disease. The positive likelihood ratio is used to calculate the probability of disease after a positive test result (rule in disease), whereas the negative likelihood ratio is used to calculate the probability of disease after a negative test result (rule out disease). At a 5-mm-thickness cutoff, the negative likelihood ratios were approximately 0.1 regardless of hormone use. Thus, a negative EVUS result can decrease a pretest odds of cancer by approximately 90% in women regardless of hormone use. A woman with a 1% risk of cancer, which is the risk associated with vaginal bleeding in a postmenopausal woman using combined hormone replacement therapy, will have a 0.1% risk of cancer following a negative ultrasound examination result. A woman with a 10% pretest probability of cancer, which is the risk associated with vaginal bleeding in a postmenopausal woman who is not using hormone replacement therapy, will have a 1% probability of cancer following a negative ultrasound examination result.
Tests of homogeneity are important in evaluating the appropriateness of combining the results of different studies. We found that the sensitivity of EVUS was high, independent of hormone replacement therapy, and consistent across studies. One study contributed the majority of the heterogeneity noted for the estimate of sensitivity.79 The low sensitivity for detecting endometrial disease using the 4-mm cutoff (Table 2 and Table 3) is a reflection of this study. If this study was excluded, the sensitivity for endometrial disease improved from 92% to 94% using the 4-mm cutoff. One study contributed approximately 25% of the patients in our pooled results.55 When this study was excluded, the results changed only slightly.
We excluded studies that evaluated the endometrium in women taking tamoxifen, which causes marked thickening of the endometrium and increases the risk of endometrial abnormality.41, 112 We did not include the results of studies that focused on the use of EVUS as a screening test for cancer in asymptomatic women because endometrial cancer is rare, most women with endometrial cancer have vaginal bleeding, and the false positives would outnumber the true positives in an asymptomatic population.96
While we included 2 unpublished studies, we may have missed other unpublished work with negative results, whose inclusion may have lowered overall test accuracy. However, it is unlikely that we missed any large studies, and smaller studies are unlikely to substantially affect the results. Additionally, the results may reflect the accuracy of specialized centers that have published data, and this may inflate the accuracy available in a general community setting.
In summary, we found that a thin (5-mm) endometrial measurement on EVUS can exclude endometrial disease in the majority of postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding, regardless of hormone replacement use. Endovaginal ultrasound has similar sensitivity as endometrial biopsy and can be used when endometrial biopsy is not available, nondiagnostic, or unsuccessful.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
We thank Warren Browner, MD, and Andrew Bindman, MD, for their review of the manuscript and Loreto Carmona, MD, for her helpful review of studies included in the meta-analysis.
Reprints: Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco/Mt Zion Medical Center, 1600 Divisidero St, San Francisco, CA 94115 (e-mail: Rebecca.Smith-Bindman{at}Radiology.UCSF.edu).
From the General Internal Medicine Section, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, Calif (Drs Smith-Bindman, Kerlikowske, and Grady); Departments of Radiology (Drs Smith-Bindman, Scheidler, and Feldstein), Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Drs Kerlikowske, Segal, Brand, and Grady), and Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences (Dr Subak), University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Scheidler is now with the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Parker SL-TT, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1996. CA Cancer J Clin. 1996;46:5-27.
ABSTRACT
2. Hawwa ZM, Nahhas WA, Copenhaver EH. Postmenopausal bleeding. Lahey Clin Found Bull. 1970;19:61-70.
PUBMED
3. Rose PG. Endometrial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:640-649.
FREE FULL TEXT
4. Einerth Y. Vacuum curettage by the Vabrar method: a simple procedure for endometrial diagnosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61:373-376.
ISI
| PUBMED
5. Lidor A, Ismajovich B, Confino E, David MP. Histopathological findings in 226 women with post-menopausal uterine bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65:41-43.
ISI
| PUBMED
6. Ferenczy A, Shore M, Guralnick M, Gelfand MM. The Kevorkian curette: an appraisal of its effectiveness in endometrial evaluation. Obstet Gynecol. 1979;54:262-267.
ISI
| PUBMED
7. Stovall TG, Photopulos GJ, Poston WM, Ling FW, Sandles LG. Pipelle endometrial sampling in patients with known endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77:954-956.
ISI
| PUBMED
8. Mestwerdt W, Kranzfelder D. Current diagnostic possibilities in endometrial carcinoma and its precursors. Gynakologe. 1983;16:87-92.
ISI
| PUBMED
9. Ben BG, Seidman DS, Schiff E, Moran O, Menczer J. Outpatient endometrial sampling with the pipelle curette. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1994;37:260-262.
ISI
| PUBMED
10. Batool T, Reginald PW, Hughes JH. Outpatient pipelle endometrial biopsy in the investigation of postmenopausal bleeding. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101:545-546.
ISI
| PUBMED
11. Hunter RE, Reuter K, Kopin E. Use of ultrasonography in the difficult postmenopausal dilation and curettage. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73:813-816.
ISI
| PUBMED
12. Weber A, Belinson J, Bradley L, Piedmonte M. Vaginal ultrasonography versus endometrial biopsy in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:924-929.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Dubinsky TJ, Parvey HR, Gormaz G, Curtis M, Maklad N. Transvaginal hysterosonography: comparison with biopsy in the evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:887-893.
ABSTRACT
14. Dubinsky TJ, Parvey HR, Gormaz G, Makland N. Transvaginal hysterosonography in the evaluation of small endoluminal masses. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:1-6.
ABSTRACT
15. Abu Hmeidan F, Baier D, Bilek K. Sonographic studies of patients with postmenopausal hemorrhage (endometrium/myometrium index). Zentralbl Gynakol. 1991;113:707-712.
ISI
| PUBMED
16. Abu Hmeidan F, Bilek K, Baier D, Nuwayhid M, Kade R. Ultrasound image of endometrial cancer. Ultraschall Med. 1992;13:178-182.
ISI
| PUBMED
17. Abu Hmeidan F, Bilek K, Baier D, Nuwayhid M, Kade R. Ultrasound assessment of the endometrium in early detection of endometrial cancer in high risk patients. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1992;114:455-458.
PUBMED
18. Aleem F, Predanic M, Calame R, Moukhtar M, Pennisi J. Transvaginal color and pulsed Doppler sonography of the endometrium: a possible role in reducing the number of dilatation and curettage procedures. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:139-145, 147-148.
ABSTRACT
19. Atri M, Nazarnia S, Aldis AE, Reinhold C, Bret PM, Kintzen G. Transvaginal US appearance of endometrial abnormalities. Radiographics. 1994;14:483-492.
ABSTRACT
20. Auslender R, Bornstein J, Dirnfeld M, Kogan O, Atad J, Abramovich H. Vaginal ultrasound in patients with postmenopausal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1993;3:426-428.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
21. Bakos O, Smith P, Heimer G. Transvaginal ultrasonography for identifying endometrial pathology in postmenopausal women. Maturitas. 1994;20:181-189.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
22. Botsis D, Kassanos D, Pyrgiotis E, Zourlas PA. Vaginal sonography of the endometrium in postmenopausal women. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1992;19:189-192.
PUBMED
23. Bourne TH, Campbell S, Whitehead MI, Royston P, Steer CV, Collins WP. Detection of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women by transvaginal ultrasonography and colour flow imaging. BMJ. 1990;301:369.
FREE FULL TEXT
24. Bourne TH, Campbell S, Steer CV, Royston P, Whitehead MI, Collins WP. Detection of endometrial cancer by transvaginal ultrasonography with color flow imaging and blood flow analysis: a preliminary report. Gynecol Oncol. 1991;40:253-259.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
25. Bourne TH. Evaluating the endometrium of postmenopausal women with transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;6:75-80.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
26. Brandner P, Gnirs J, Neis KJ, Hettenbach A, Schmidt W. Value of vaginal ultrasonography in noninvasive assessment of the endometrium of the postmenopausal uterus. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1991;51:734-740.
PUBMED
27. Brolmann HA, van der Linden PJ, Bongers MY, Moret E, Meuwissen JH. Ultrasonographic diagnosis of endometrial disorders: correlation with the histological results in 112 patients. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993;137:1823-1827.
PUBMED
28. Cacciatore B, Ramsay T, Lehtovirta P, Ylostalo P. Transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy in postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1994;73:413-416.
ISI
| PUBMED
29. Cecchini S, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Grazzini G, Mazzota A. Endometrial ultrasonography: an alternative to invasive assessment in women with postmenopausal vaginal bleeding. Tumori. 1996;82:38-39.
ISI
| PUBMED
30. Chan FY, Chau MT, Pun TC, et al. Limitations of transvaginal sonography and color Doppler imaging in the differentiation of endometrial carcinoma from benign lesions. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13:623-628.
ABSTRACT
31. Cohen I, Rosen DJ, Tepper R, et al. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the endometrium and correlation with endometrial sampling in postmenopausal patients treated with tamoxifen. J Ultrasound Med. 1993;12:275-280.
ABSTRACT
32. Cohen I, Rosen DJ, Shapira J, et al. Endometrial changes with tamoxifen: comparison between tamoxifen-treated and nontreated asymptomatic, postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;52:185-190.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
33. Conoscenti G, Meir Y, Fischer TL, et al. The diagnostic capacities of transvaginal echography and hysteroscopy in the characterization of endometrial pathology. Minerva Ginecol. 1995;47:293-300.
PUBMED
34. Conoscenti G, Meir YJ, Fischer TL, et al. Endometrial assessment by transvaginal sonography and histological findings after D & C in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;6:108-115.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
35. D'Amelio R, Perrone G, Di VF, et al. Echographic monitoring of the endometrium with a transvaginal probe in the menopause: a clinical study of 185 women in the menopause. Minerva Ginecol. 1994;46:551-556.
PUBMED
36. Degenhardt F, Bohmer S, Frisch K, Schneider J. Transvaginal ultrasonic assessment of the endometrium in menopause. Ultraschall Med. 1991;12:119-123.
ISI
| PUBMED
37. Dijkhuizen FP, Brolmann HA, Potters AE, Bongers MY, Heinz AP. The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of endometrial abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:345-349.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
38. Dorum A, Kristensen GB, Langebrekke A, Sornes T, Skaar O. Evaluation of endometrial thickness measured by endovaginal ultrasound in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1993;72:116-119.
ISI
| PUBMED
39. Emanuel MH, Verdel MJ, Wamsteker K, Lammes FB. A prospective comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of patients with abnormal uterine bleeding: clinical implications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:547-552.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
40. Feldman S, Shapter A, Welch WR, Berkowitz RS. Two-year follow-up of 263 patients with post/perimenopausal vaginal bleeding and negative initial biopsy. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;55:56-59.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
41. Fisher ER, Costantino J, Fisher B, Palekar AS, Redmond C, Mamounas E for the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Collaborating Investigators. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) Protocol B-17: intraductal carcinoma (ductal carcinoma in situ). Cancer. 1995;75:1310-1319.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
42. Fleischer AC, Kalemeris GC, Machin JE, Entman SS, James AJ. Sonographic depiction of normal and abnormal endometrium with histopathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 1986;5:445-452.
ABSTRACT
43. Georgiev DB, Chernev T, Netzov V, Dimova DN. Preoperative sonographic evaluation of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1994;47:147-150.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
44. Goldstein SR, Nachtigall M, Snyder JR, Nachtigall L. Endometrial assessment by vaginal ultrasonography before endometrial sampling in patients with postmenopausal bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;163:119-123.
ISI
| PUBMED
45. Granberg S, Wikland M, Karlsson B, Norstrom A, Friberg LG. Endometrial thickness as measured by endovaginal ultrasonography for identifying endometrial abnormality. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;164:47-52.
ISI
| PUBMED
46. Gredmark T, Kvint S, Havel G, Mattsson LA. Histopathological findings in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:133-136.
ISI
| PUBMED
47. Grunfeld L, Walker B, Bergh PA, Sandler B, Hofmann G, Navot D. High-resolution endovaginal ultrasonography of the endometrium: a noninvasive test for endometrial adequacy. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:200-204.
ISI
| PUBMED
48. Gu CX, He FF, Xiang H. Differential diagnosis of endometrial abnormality by transvaginal sonography. Chung Hua Fu Chan Ko Tsa Chih. 1994;29:720-723, 761.
49. Gupta JK, Wilson S, Desai P, Hau C. How should we investigate women with postmenopausal bleeding? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996;75:475-479.
ISI
| PUBMED
50. Hanggi W, Brandenberger AW, Ammann M, Laely A, Dietz TU, Herrmann U. Diagnosis of malignant uterine tumors by transvaginal ultrasound. Ultraschall Med. 1995;16:2-7.
ISI
| PUBMED
51. Hulka CA, Hall DA. Endometrial abnormalities associated with tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer: sonographic and pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160:809-812.
FREE FULL TEXT
52. Indman PD. Abnormal uterine bleeding: accuracy of vaginal probe ultrasound in predicting abnormal hysteroscopic findings. J Reprod Med. 1995;40:545-548.
ISI
| PUBMED
53. Karlsson B, Granberg S, Wikland M, Ryd W, Norstrom A. Endovaginal scanning of the endometrium compared to cytology and histology in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Gynecol Oncol. 1993;50:173-178.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
54. Karlsson B, Granberg S, Hellberg P, Wikland M. Comparative study of transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy for the detection of pathologic endometrial lesions in women with postmenopausal bleeding. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13:757-762.
ABSTRACT
55. Karlsson B, Granberg S, Wikland M, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography of the endometrium in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a Nordic multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:1488-1494.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
56. Kedar RP, Bourne TH, Powles TJ, et al. Effects of tamoxifen on uterus and ovaries of postmenopausal women in a randomised breast cancer prevention trial. Lancet. 1994;343:1318-1321.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
57. Klug PW, Leitner G. Comparison of vaginal ultrasound and histologic findings of the endometrium. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1989;49:797-802.
PUBMED
58. Kurjak A, Shalan H, Sosic A, et al. Endometrial carcinoma in postmenopausal women: evaluation by transvaginal color Doppler ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169:1597-1603.
ISI
| PUBMED
59. Lahti E, Blanco G, Kauppila A, Apaja SM, Taskinen PJ, Laatikainen T. Endometrial changes in postmenopausal breast cancer patients receiving tamoxifen. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:660-664.
ISI
| PUBMED
60. Maia HJ, Barbosa IC, Farias JP, Ladipo OA, Coutinho EM. Evaluation of the endometrial cavity during menopause. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1996;52:61-66.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
61. Malinova M, Pehlivanov B. Transvaginal sonography and endometrial thickness in patients with postmenopausal uterine bleeding. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;58:161-165.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
62. Malpani A, Singer J, Wolverson MK, Merenda G. Endometrial hyperplasia: value of endometrial thickness in ultrasonographic diagnosis and clinical significance. J Clin Ultrasound. 1990;18:173-177.
ISI
| PUBMED
63. Mascaretti G, Carta G, Renzi E, Peluzzi C, Moscarini M. Evaluation of the endometrium by vaginal ultrasonography. Minerva Ginecol. 1993;45:1-4.
PUBMED
64. Nasri MN, Coast GJ. Correlation of ultrasound findings and endometrial histopathology in postmenopausal women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96:1333-1338.
ISI
| PUBMED
65. Nasri MN, Shepherd JH, Setchell ME, Lowe DG, Chard T. The role of vaginal scan in measurement of endometrial thickness in postmenopausal women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98:470-475.
ISI
| PUBMED
66. Nasri MN, Shepherd JH, Setchell ME, Lowe DG, Chard T. Transvaginal ultrasound: a reliable basis for clinical management? case reports. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98:485-486.
ISI
| PUBMED
67. Osmers R, Volksen M, Rath W, Teichmann A, Kuhn W. Vaginosonographic measurement of the postmenopausal endometrium in the early detection of endometrial cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1989;49:262-265.
PUBMED
68. Osmers R, Volksen M, Schauer A. Vaginosonography for early detection of endometrial carcinoma? Lancet. 1990;335:1569-1571.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
69. Osmers R, Volksen M, Rath W, Kuhn W. Vaginosonographic detection of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1990;32:35-37.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
70. Osmers R, Volksen M, Kuhn W. Evaluation of the endometrium in postmenopausal women by means of vaginal ultrasound. Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet. 1992;87:309-315.
PUBMED
71. Pal A, Borthaiser Z. Experience with transvaginal ultrasonic examination in patients with metrorrhagia. Orv Hetil. 1994;135:1305-1307.
PUBMED
72. Persiani P, Perotti F, Riccardi A, Gallina D, Polatti F, Zara C. Diagnostic accuracy in transvaginal echography in benign endometrial diseases and its comparison with hysteroscopic biopsy. Minerva Ginecol. 1995;47:63-67.
PUBMED
73. Pertl B, Lahousen M, Pieber D, Heydarfadai HJ, Giuliani A. Value of ultrasound in early detection of endometrial carcinoma. Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch. 1996;36:14-20.
ISI
| PUBMED
74. Possati G, Jasonni VM, Naldi S, et al. Ultrasound, hysteroscopy, and histological assessment of the endometrium in postmenopausal women. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1994;734:479-481.
ISI
| PUBMED
75. Rayter Z, Gazet JC, Shepherd J, et al. Gynaecological cytology and pelvic ultrasonography in patients with breast cancer taking tamoxifen compared with controls. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1994;20:134-140.
PUBMED
76. Rudelstorfer R, Nanz S, Bernaschek G. Vaginosonography and its diagnostic value in patients with postmenopausal bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1990;248:37-44.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
77. Salet-Lizee D, Gadonneix P, Van Den Akker M, Villet R. The reliability of study methods of the endometrium: a comparative study of 178 patients. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1993;22:593-599.
PUBMED
78. Schoenfeld A, Levavi H, Hirsch M, Pardo J, Ovadia J. Transvaginal sonography in postmenopausal women. J Clin Ultrasound. 1990;18:350-358.
ISI
| PUBMED
79. Schramm T, Kurzl R, Schweighart C, Stuckert KA. Endometrial carcinoma and vaginal ultrasound: studies of the diagnostic validity. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1995;55:65-72.
PUBMED
80. Seelbach-Gobel GB, Rempen A, Kristen P. Transvaginal ultrasound of the endometrium in postmenopause. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1995;55:59-64.
PUBMED
81. Shipley CR, Simmons CL, Nelson GH. Comparison of transvaginal sonography with endometrial biopsy in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13:99-104.
ABSTRACT
82. Smith P, Bakos O, Heimer G, Ulmsten U. Transvaginal ultrasound for identifying endometrial abnormality. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1991;70:591-594.
PUBMED
83. Taviani A, Braccini S, Toniazzi P, et al. Transvaginal echography in patients with postmenopausal metrorrhagia. Minerva Ginecol. 1995;47:369-372.
PUBMED
84. Tongsong T, Pongnarisorn C, Mahanuphap P. Use of vaginosonographic measurements of endometrial thickness in the identification of abnormal endometrium in peri- and postmenopausal bleeding. J Clin Ultrasound. 1994;22:479-482.
ISI
| PUBMED
85. Tsuda H, Kawabata M, Kawabata K, et al. Differences between Occidental and Oriental postmenopausal women in cutoff level of endometrial thickness for endometrial cancer screening by vaginal scan. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:1494-1495.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
86. Tsuda H, Kawabata M, Kawabata K, Yamamoto K, Hidaka A, Umesaki N. Comparison between transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasonography for identifying endometrial malignancies. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1995;40:271-273.
ISI
| PUBMED
87. Van den Bosch T, Vandendael A, Van Schoubroeck D, Wranz PA, Lombard CJ. Combining vaginal ultrasonography and office endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of endometrial disease in postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:349-352.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
88. Varner RE, Sparks JM, Cameron CD, Roberts LL, Soong SJ. Transvaginal sonography of the endometrium in postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:195-199.
ISI
| PUBMED
89. Volgger B, Alge A, Windbichler G, Zeimet AG, Muller HE, Marth C. Ultrasound morphologic evaluation of the postmenopausal endometrium: a prospective study. Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch. 1996;36:21-28.
ISI
| PUBMED
90. Weigel M, Schmitt W, Lieder HJ, Inthraphuvasak J. The value of various parameters for ultrasound assessment of the postmenopausal endometrium with reference to benign and malignant neoplasms. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1990;50:870-876.
PUBMED
91. Weigel M, Friese K, Strittmatter HJ, Melchert F. Measuring the thickness—is that all we have to do for sonographic assessment of endometrium in postmenopausal women? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;6:97-102.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
92. Wolman I, Sagi J, Ginat S, Jaffa AJ, Hartoov J, Jedwab G. The sensitivity and specificity of vaginal sonography in detecting endometrial abnormalities in women with postmenopausal bleeding. J Clin Ultrasound. 1996;24:79-82.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
93. Zacchi V, Zini R, Canino A. Transvaginal sonography as a screening method for the identification of patients at risk of postmenopausal endometrial pathology. Minerva Ginecol. 1993;45:339-342.
PUBMED
94. Zalud I, Conway C, Schulman H, Trinca D. Endometrial and myometrial thickness and uterine blood flow in postmenopausal women: the influence of hormonal replacement therapy and age. J Ultrasound Med. 1993;12:737-741.
ABSTRACT
95. Zannoni E, Radaelli U, Balestri M, Ferrazzi F. L'ecografia transvaginale nella valutazione dell'endometrio in pazienti con perdite ematiche atipiche in postmenopausa. In: D'Addario V, Cagnazzo G, eds. ECO 1994. Italy: CIC Edizioni Internazionali; 1994:27-30.
96. Langer RD, Pierce JJ, O'Hanlan KA, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography compared with endometrial biopsy for the detection of endometrial disease: Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions Trial. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1792-1798.
FREE FULL TEXT
97. Promer H, Heiss O, Graf A, Batka M, Staudach A. Screening for endometrial cancer by Mi-Mark cytology and vaginal ultrasound. Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch. 1992;1:117-118.
98. Archer DF, McIntyre SK, Wilborn WJ, et al. Endometrial morphology in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165:317-322.
ISI
| PUBMED
99. Castelo BC, Puerto B, Duran M, et al. Transvaginal sonography of the endometrium in postmenopausal women: monitoring the effect of hormone replacement therapy. Maturitas. 1994;19:59-65.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
100. Zorlu CG, Cobanoglu O, Ekici E, Ergun Y, Kuscu E, Gokmen O. Preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma by transvaginal ultrasonography. Mater Med Pol. 1995;27:23-25.
PUBMED
101. Artner A, Bosze P, Gonda G. The value of ultrasound in preoperative assessment of the myometrial and cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;54:147-151.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
102. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:667-676.
FREE FULL TEXT
103. Aitchison J. Confidence-region tests. J R Stat Soc. 1964;3:462-476.
104. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293-1316.
ISI
| PUBMED
105. Lipscomb GH, Lopatine SM, Stovall TG, Ling FW. A randomized comparison of the pipelle, accurette, and explora endometrial sampling devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:591-594.
ISI
| PUBMED
106. Stovall TG, Solomon SK, Ling FW. Endometrial sampling prior to hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73:405-409. [published erratum appears in Obstet Gynecol 1989;74:105].
107. Van den Bosch T, Vandendael A, Wranz PA, Lombard CJ. Endopap-versus pipelle-sampling in the diagnosis of postmenopausal endometrial disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;64:91-94.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
108. Vuopala S. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical applicability of cytological and histological methods for investigating endometrial carcinoma. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1977;70:22-25.
109. Grimes DA. Diagnostic dilation and curettage: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;142:1-6.
ISI
| PUBMED
110. Koonings P, Moyer D, Grimes D. A randomized clinical trial comparing pipelle and tis-u-trap for endometrial biopsy. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75:293-295.
ISI
| PUBMED
111. Stock R, Kanbour A. Prehysterectomy curettage. Obstet Gynecol. 1975;45:537-541.
ISI
| PUBMED
112. Fornander T, Rutqvist LE, Cedermark B, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen in early breast cancer: occurrence of new primary cancers. Lancet. 1989;1:117-120.
ISI
| PUBMED
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTER
Endovaginal Ultrasound to Evaluate Endometrial Abnormalities
Robert L. Bree, Carol B. Benson, Marcela Bohm-Velez, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Karla Kerlikowske, and Vicki Feldstein
JAMA. 1999;281(18):1693.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
Vaginal Ultrasonography to Evaluate Postmenopausal Bleeding
Karen J. Carlson
JAMA. 1998;280(17):1529-1530.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Postmenopausal bleeding
Gale and Dey
Menopause Int 2009;15:160-164.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Hormone replacement therapy and the endometrium
Daayana and Holland
Menopause Int 2009;15:134-138.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Long-term endometrial effects in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer participating in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES)--a randomised controlled trial of exemestane versus continued tamoxifen after 2-3 years tamoxifen
Bertelli et al.
Ann Oncol 2009;0:mdp358v1-mdp358.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Authors' reply
Palmer et al.
The Obstetrician and Gynaecologist 2009;11:150-150.
FULL TEXT
Radiological Reasoning: Algorithmic Workup of Abnormal Vaginal Bleeding with Endovaginal Sonography and Sonohysterography
Shi and Lee
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;191:S68-S73.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Algorithmic Workup of Abnormal Vaginal Bleeding with Endovaginal Sonography and Sonohysterography: Self-Assessment Module
Shi and Lee
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;191:S74-S78.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Endometrial hyperplasia
Palmer et al.
The Obstetrician and Gynaecologist 2008;10:211-216.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Diffusion-Weighted Single-Shot Echo-Planar Imaging with Parallel Technique in Assessment of Endometrial Cancer
Shen et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;190:481-488.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Oncodiagnosis Panel: 2006: Ovarian, Cervical, and Endometrial Cancer
Viswanathan et al.
RadioGraphics 2008;28:289-307.
FULL TEXT
Reproducibility of Endometrial Vascular Patterns in Endometrial Disease as Assessed by Transvaginal Power Doppler Sonography in Women With Postmenopausal Bleeding
Alcazar et al.
J Ultrasound Med 2006;25:159-163.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound in diagnosing endometrial pathology in women with post-menopausal bleeding on tamoxifen
Weaver et al.
Br. J. Radiol. 2005;78:394-397.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Systematic Review: Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography To Detect Acute Appendicitis in Adults and Adolescents
Terasawa et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;141:537-546.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Saline Infusion Sonohysterography: Technique, Indications, and Imaging Findings
Berridge and Winter
J Ultrasound Med 2004;23:97-112.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of Estrogen Plus Progestin on Gynecologic Cancers and Associated Diagnostic Procedures: The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial
Anderson et al.
JAMA 2003;290:1739-1748.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Gynecologic Sonography: Past, Present, and Future
Fleischer
J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:759-763.
FULL TEXT
Early Endometrial Cancer in a Postmenopausal Woman: A Case Report
Pearson
Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography 2003;19:24-31.
ABSTRACT
Transvaginal US and Hysterosonography in Postmenopausal Women with Breast Cancer Receiving Tamoxifen: Correlation with Hysteroscopy and Pathologic Study
Fong et al.
RadioGraphics 2003;23:137-150.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Invited Commentary
Dudiak
RadioGraphics 2003;23:151-155.
FULL TEXT
Accuracy of Hysteroscopy in the Diagnosis of Endometrial Cancer and Hyperplasia: A Systematic Quantitative Review
Clark et al.
JAMA 2002;288:1610-1621.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Color Doppler Sonography of Endometrial Masses
Fleischer et al.
J Ultrasound Med 2002;21:861-865.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
US for Postmenopausal Bleeding: Consensus Development and Patient-centered Outcomes
Bree and Carlos
Radiology 2002;222:595-598.
FULL TEXT
Endometrial Evaluation with Transvaginal US and Hysterosonography in Asymptomatic Postmenopausal Women with Breast Cancer Receiving Tamoxifen
Fong et al.
Radiology 2001;220:765-773.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests
Deeks
BMJ 2001;323:157-162.
FULL TEXT
Second-Trimester Ultrasound to Detect Fetuses With Down Syndrome: A Meta-analysis
Smith-Bindman et al.
JAMA 2001;285:1044-1055.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Measurement of Endometrial Thickness at US in Multicenter Drug Trials: Value of Central Quality Assurance Reading
Bredella et al.
Radiology 2000;217:516-520.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of Adjuvant Tamoxifen on the Endometrium in Postmenopausal Women With Breast Cancer: A Prospective Long-Term Study Using Transvaginal Ultrasound
Gerber et al.
JCO 2000;18:3464-3470.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
US Evaluation of the Uterus in Patients with Postmenopausal Bleeding: A Positive Effect on Diagnostic Decision Making
Bree et al.
Radiology 2000;216:260-264.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prescribing Hormone Replacement Therapy for Menopausal Symptoms
McNagny
ANN INTERN MED 1999;131:605-616.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Individualized Approach to Menopause Management
Walsh
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 1999;84:1900-1904.
FULL TEXT
Endovaginal Ultrasound to Evaluate Endometrial Abnormalities
Bree et al.
JAMA 1999;281:1693-1693.
FULL TEXT
Endovaginal Ultrasound to Evaluate Vaginal Bleeding in Postmenopausal Women
JWatch General 1998;1998:5-5.
FULL TEXT
Vaginal Ultrasonography to Evaluate Postmenopausal Bleeding
Carlson
JAMA 1998;280:1529-1530.
FULL TEXT
Cost Analysis Model: US versus Endometrial Biopsy in Evaluation of Peri- and Postmenopausal Abnormal Vaginal Bleeding
Medverd and Dubinsky
Radiology 2002;222:619-627.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
