Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the accuracy of diagnosing endometrial hyperplasia (EH) by curettage.METHODS:150 cases who had been diagnosed as EH by curettage and received hysterectomy shortly after were studied retrospectively. All of the specimens obtained from curettage and operation underwent pathological examination. The results of pathological diagnosis of these two kinds of specimens were compared. Proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) expression was examined by immunohistochemistry in 38 cases diagnosed as complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH).RESULTS:Fifty-three cases were diagnosed as simple hyperplasia (SH), eleven cases as complex hyperplasia (CH), twenty-six cases as simple atypical hyperplasia (SAH), and sixty cases as CAH by curettage. Rediagnosis was made for all patients after hysterectomy. Pathological examination of the specimens from operation diagnosed 65 cases as SH, 7 cases as CH, 15 cases as SAH, 29 cases as CAH, and 34 cases as EC. The general accuracy of histological diagnosis by curettage was 76.7% approximately 92.6%. Coexistence with EC was more common in cases with SAH and CAH than in cases with SH and CH (chi(2) = 26.3, P < 0.01). Coexistence with EC was more common in cases with CAH than in cases with SAH (chi(2) = 9.78, P < 0.005). Among the CAH cases, coexistence with EC was more common in postmenopausal patients than in premenopausal patients (chi(2) = 3.93, P < 0.05). Among the CAH cases, the positive rate of PCNA expression was higher and strength of positivity greater in those cases with EC (Uc = 3.66, P < 0.05).CONCLUSION:The accuracy of curettage is rather high in diagnosing SH and relatively low in diagnosing CAH. CAH often coexists with EC. Examination of PCNA expression may help differentiate between CAH and EC.

[Evaluation of Diagnosis of Endometrial Hyperplasia by Curettage].