Published in
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2(121), p. 381-382, 2013
DOI: 10.1097/aog.0b013e318280a16a
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2(121), p. 380-381, 2013
DOI: 10.1097/aog.0b013e318280a155
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 5(120), p. 998-1004, 2012
DOI: 10.1097/aog.0b013e31826b9fef
Links
- ORCID
- Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
- Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
- Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
- [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] | PDF
- [hdl.handle.net]
- [hdl.handle.net]
- [www.researchgate.net] | PDF
Tools
Risk Factors for Developing Endometrial Cancer After Benign Endometrial Sampling
,
Stefano Uccella,
Massimiliano Fambrini,
Sanjeev Kumar,
Francesco Paolo Mangino,
Abimbola O. Famuyide,
William A. Cliby,
Carlo Bouchè,
Sean C. Dowdy,
Bobbie S. Gostout,
Leo Fischer-Tamaro,
Secondo Guaschino
and other authors.
Full text: Download
Abstract
As already demonstrated by several clinical studies, dilation and curettage and the other blind procedures have a low diagnostic accuracy for evaluating women with uterine disorders. By contrast, there is a large body of evidence showing that hysteroscopy is highly sensitive and specific in diagnosing endouterine diseases. Therefore, currently, hysteroscopy should be considered ‘gold standard’ in uterine cavity evaluation, and blind procedures should be abandoned. In fact, as suggested by many reports, the risk of missing premalignant or malignant endometrial lesions with these procedures is not negligible.