ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2025
Poor accuracy of endometrial sampling in patients with uterine carcinosarcomas: a nationwide analysis.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the accuracy of aspiration biopsy (AB), hysteroscopic biopsy (HB), and dilatation & curettage (D&C) in detecting uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS).
methodsPathology reports were retrieved from the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank PALGA for patients with a certain or suggested diagnosis of UCS in pre- and/or postoperative histology between 2001 and 2021. Patients without available pre- or postoperative pathology reports were excluded. The accuracy measures sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), accuracy, and concordance using Cohen's kappa were calculated for AB, D&C, and HB, using postoperative histology as the reference. This was analyzed for 2 scenarios: Analysis A compared samples with a certain or suggested diagnosis of UCS vs. no mention of UCS. Analysis B compared samples with a certain diagnosis of UCS vs those without UCS.
resultsThe study included 1,481 patients, totaling 1,685 samples. Sensitivity was similar for AB and HB (52.4% and 50.5%, respectively, for analysis A; 45.1% and 42.2% for analysis B). D&C showed the highest sensitivity (70.8% and 64.9% for analysis A and B, respectively). AB had the highest PPV (85.3% and 90.9% for analysis A and B, respectively), HB had the lowest PPV (79.7% and 80.9%, respectively). Accuracy was highest for D&C (44.4%) compared to AB (32.8%) and HB (29.5%). All Cohen's kappa values were below 0.20, indicating poor correlation between preoperative and postoperative diagnoses.
conclusionThe study reveals low accuracy measures across all conventional endometrial sampling techniques, highlighting the need for research to identify markers or tools to diagnose UCS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.