Expert Commentary

Is population-based screening for endometrial cancer feasible?

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

RELATED ARTICLE

Although endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, population-based screening has not been recommended. In this study—the only large-scale study to focus on the use of TVS in endometrial cancer screening—Jacobs and colleagues correlated endometrial thickness and any endometrial abnormalities detected during screening with a subsequent diagnosis of endometrial neoplasia (cancer or atypical hyperplasia). In an analysis of 96 asymptomatic women who were found to have endometrial neoplasia at the time of TVS, a cutoff for endometrial thickness of 5 mm or more was associated with 77.1% sensitivity and 85.8% specificity.

Among the variables associated with a higher risk of endometrial neoplasia were weight, age, and a personal history of breast cancer. Among those associated with a lower risk of neoplasia were use of oral contraceptives, age at menarche, and parity.

Jacobs and colleagues used these risk factors to divide women into quartiles. Women in the highest quartile had a relative risk (RR) of endometrial neoplasia of 1.98, and 39.5% of cases fell into this quartile. In this quartile, a cutoff for endometrial thickness of 6.75 mm or more was associated with sensitivity of 84.3% and specificity of 89.9%.

One finding is inexplicable

In an editorial accompanying this study, Vergote and colleagues call attention to what they consider to be an inexplicable finding: The optimal cutoff for endometrial thickness in the highest-risk quartile was greater than it was for the lower-risk women.1 They also point to the lack of data on subsequent procedures, such as endometrial biopsy and hysteroscopy, in women who had falsely positive TVS findings. And they emphasize their belief that the study should not lead clinicians to perform biopsies in asymptomatic women who are found to have an endometrial thickness greater than 5 mm.

Last, the editorialists, all of whom are gynecologic oncologists, appropriately point out that not all endometrial neoplasia is life-threatening. Therefore, the long-term survival advantage of detecting endometrial neoplasia in asymptomatic women is uncertain.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE

The findings of Jacobs and colleagues form the basis for further large-scale study of screening for endometrial cancer in asymptomatic women. But until such studies are conducted and reported (and then only if findings support a benefit from screening), there is no justification for screening asymptomatic postmenopausal women using TVS.
—ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD

We want to hear from you! Tell us what you think.

Recommended Reading

Is the HPV test effective as the primary screen for cervical cancer?
MDedge ObGyn
2 HPV vaccines, 7 questions that you need answered
MDedge ObGyn
An ObGyn’s guide to aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for breast CA
MDedge ObGyn
Skilled US imaging of the adnexae: Ovarian Neoplasms
MDedge ObGyn
Just how much does screening mammography reduce mortality from breast cancer?
MDedge ObGyn
Consider denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporosis
MDedge ObGyn
Can nonhormonal treatments relieve hot flushes in breast Ca survivors?
MDedge ObGyn
Quadrivalent HPV vaccine now FDA-approved to prevent anal cancer
MDedge ObGyn
When is endocervical curettage informative in cervical cancer screening?
MDedge ObGyn
New study reveals a link between estrogen-progestin HRT and advanced breast cancer
MDedge ObGyn