RESUMO
Endometriosis is a complex gynecologic disorder characterized primarily by symptoms of pelvic pain, infertility, and altered quality of life. National and international guidelines highlight the diagnostic difficulties and lack of conclusive diagnostic tools for endometriosis. Furthermore, guidelines are becoming questionable at an increasingly rapid rate as new diagnostic techniques emerge. This work aims to provide a knowledge synthesis of the relevance of various diagnostic tools and to assess areas of improvement of conventional algorithms. MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2021 to December 2023 using relevant key words. Articles evaluating the diagnostic relevance and performance of various tools were included and independently reviewed by the authors for eligibility. Included studies were assessed using the GRADE and QUADAS-2 tools. Of the 4204 retrieved articles, 26 were included. While anamnesis and clinical examination do contribute to diagnostic accuracy, their level of evidence and impact on the diagnostic process remains limited. Although imaging techniques are recommended to investigate endometriosis, ultrasonography remains highly operator dependent. Magnetic resonance imaging appears to exhibit higher sensitivities than ultrasound. However, concerns persist with regards to the terminology, anatomical definition of lesions, and accuracies of both ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Recently, several biological markers have been studied and cumulative evidence supports the contribution of noncoding RNAs to the diagnosis of endometriosis. Marginal improvements have been suggested for anamnesis, clinical examination, and imaging examinations. Conversely, some biomarkers, including the saliva microRNA signature for endometriosis, have emerged as diagnostic tools which inspire reflection on the revision of conventional diagnostic algorithms.
RESUMO
Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) is recognized as a precursor of breast cancer and its management (surgical excision or intensive follow-up) remains unclear after diagnosis on core needle biopsy (CNB). The aim of this study was to determine the underestimation rate of pure FEA on CNB and clinical, radiological, and pathological factors of underestimation. 4,062 CNBs from 5 breast cancer centers, performed over a 5-year period, were evaluated. A CNB diagnosis of pure FEA was made in 60 cases (1.5%) (the presence of atypical ductal hyperplasia, lobular neoplasia, radial scars, phyllodes tumor, papillary lesions, ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma at CNB were exclusion criteria), and subsequent surgical excision was systematically performed. The histological diagnosis was retrospectively reviewed using standardized criteria and the precise terminology of the World Health Organization by two pathologist physicians. At surgical excision, 6 (10%) ductal carcinoma in situ and 2 (3%) invasive carcinoma were diagnosed. The total underestimation rate was 13%. FEA was associated with atypical ductal hyperplasia in 10 (17%) cases and with lobular neoplasia in 2 (3%) at final pathology. Residual FEA was found in 14 (23%) cases. No clinical, radiological or pathological factors were significantly associated with underestimation. Our data highlight the importance of recognizing and diagnosing FEA in core needle biopsies. Thus, the presence of FEA on CNB, even in isolation, warrants follow-up excision.