Can a higher endometrial thickness threshold exclude endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia in asymptomatic postmenopausal women? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic postmenopausal women incidentally found to have thickened endometrium (>4 mm) on transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) often undergo hysteroscopy and dilatation and curettage despite having a low absolute risk of endometrial cancer. A low threshold for investigation may be unnecessary in these women. AIM: This systematic literature review examines whether an increased TVUS endometrial thickness threshold has superior diagnostic accuracy for endometrial malignancies and premalignancies in asymptomatic postmenopausal women than the current threshold of ≥4 mm. METHODS: Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched using keywords for publications between 2011 and 2021. Studies were included if they reported TVUS endometrial thickness analysis in asymptomatic postmenopausal women and excluded if they were written in a non-English language. Quality of evidence in the included articles was evaluated according to recommendations by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation Working Group and reported results were tabulated. RESULTS: Of seven studies (N = 2986), better evidence identified 12 mm as the optimal diagnostic threshold (area under the curve receiver operating characteristic (AUC ROC) 0.716, 95% CI 0.534-0.897, P = 0.019) for endometrial cancer in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Two higher quality studies (n = 488 and n = 4751) identified 11 mm as optimal for diagnosing both endometrial carcinoma and atypical hyperplasia (AUC ROC 0.587, 95% CI 0.465-0.708, P = 0.144 and 2.59 relative risk, 95% CI 1.66-4.05, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Evidence for improved detection of endometrial premalignancies and malignancies using alternative endometrial thickness thresholds is not rigorous. Evidence for improved outcomes using alternative thresholds is inadequate. Observation of asymptomatic postmenopausal women without risk factors and with an endometrial thickness of less than 10 mm may be reasonable.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) compared with conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) for surgical staging of endometrial cancer has not been clearly established. With the commencement of a robotic program at our institution, our objective was to evaluate and compare the surgical outcomes of RALH with TLH for endometrial cancer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on 39 patients who underwent RALH and 41 patients who underwent TLH for endometrial cancer at a tertiary care academic institution. RESULTS: In the setting of endometrial cancer RALH is significantly longer to perform than TLH (mean operating time 133 min vs 107 min, p = 0.0001). There is higher estimated blood loss in TLH cases than RALH cases (78 mL vs 22 mL, p = 0.015). Women who underwent RALH had a shorter length of stay (1.3 days vs 1.8 days, p = 0.006) than TLH patients, and six cases (15 %) of the RALH group were discharged on the same day of surgery. There were no differences between the RALH and TLH groups in intraoperative or postoperative complications and there were no conversions to laparotomy. CONCLUSION: RALH is safe and feasible for the treatment of endometrial cancer, with low morbidity, less blood loss and shorter length of stay than TLH. RALH is associated with longer mean operating times than TLH and this may improve with enlisting a consistent experienced team. Prospective randomised studies which include analysis of quality of life measures and long-term outcomes are required to further establish the role of RALH in the surgical staging of endometrial cancer.