Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T02:52:25.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Sonographic Assessment of Endometrial Pathology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2020

Kanna Jayaprakasan
Affiliation:
Department of Maternity and Gynaecology, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby
Lukasz Polanski
Affiliation:
Assisted Conception Unit, Guy’s Hospital, London
Kamal Ojha
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St George's University Hospital, London
Get access

Summary

Endometrial pathology includes hyperplasia, polyps, cancer and infection. Intracavitary fibroids are sensu stricto not endometrial lesions, but should be included in the differential diagnosis.

Although intracavitary pathology may be found incidentally while scanning for an unrelated reason, most patients will be diagnosed during the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding. Ultrasound examination is the test of choice to triage patients for further management. If a thin and regular endometrium is seen after menopause, endometrial atrophy is the most likely diagnosis, while the risk for malignancy is very low(Figure 6.1).

Type
Chapter
Information
Gynaecological Ultrasound Scanning
Tips and Tricks
, pp. 79 - 86
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Timmermans, A, Opmeer, BC, Khan, KS, et al. Endometrial thickness measurement for detecting endometrial cancer in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116(1):160–7.Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, T, Van Schoubroeck, D, Domali, E, et al. A thin and regular endometrium on ultrasound is very unlikely in patients with endometrial malignancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29(6):674–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Bosch, T, Ameye, L, Van Schoubroeck, D, Bourne, T, and Timmerman, D. Intra-cavitary uterine pathology in women with abnormal uterine bleeding: a prospective study of 1220 women. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2015;7(1):1724.Google ScholarPubMed
Leone, FP, Timmerman, D, Bourne, T, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35(1):103–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naftalin, J, Jurkovic, D. The endometrial–myometrial junction: a fresh look at a busy crossing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34(1):111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Votino, A, Van den Bosch, T, Installe, AJ, et al. Optimizing the ultrasound visualization of the endometrial–myometrial junction (EMJ). Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2015;7(1):60–3.Google Scholar
Timmerman, D, Verguts, J, Konstantinovic, ML, et al. The pedicle artery sign based on sonography with color Doppler imaging can replace second-stage tests in women with abnormal vaginal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22(2):166–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Kroon, CD, de Bock, GH, Dieben, SW, et al. Saline contrast hysterosonography in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2003;110(10):938–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Bosch, T, Betsas, G, Van Schoubroeck, D, et al. Gel infusion sonography in the evaluation of the uterine cavity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34(6):711–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werbrouck, E, Veldman, J, Luts, J, et al. Detection of endometrial pathology using saline infusion sonography versus gel instillation sonography: a prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 2011;95(1):285–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Bosch, T, Van Schoubroeck, D, Van Calster, B, Cornelis, A, Timmerman, D. Pre-sampling ultrasound evaluation and assessment of the tissue yield during sampling improves the diagnostic reliability of office endometrial biopsy. J Obstet Gynaecol 2012;32(2):173–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×