ArticleThe journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research2026
Assessing Preoperative Grading Discrepancies in Endometrial Cancer: Impact of Biopsy Method and Clinical Risk Factors.
Article in The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAlthough molecular classification has improved risk stratification in endometrial cancer (EC), preoperative surgical decision-making remains based on histological subtype and tumor grade. We compared the diagnostic concordance of Pipelle biopsy and dilation and curettage (D&C) with final pathology in EC and identified risk factors for postoperative pathological discrepancies following Pipelle biopsy.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 355 patients with EC who underwent preoperative endometrial sampling by D&C or Pipelle biopsy between January 2009 and December 2025. EC was categorized according to the WHO 5th edition as low-grade (G1/G2 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma [EEC]), high-grade (G3 EEC), or non-endometrioid carcinoma (NEEC). Postoperative upgrading was defined as low-grade to high-grade/NEEC, and downgrading as high-grade/NEEC to low-grade. Concordance between preoperative and final pathology was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Binomial logistic regression analysis was performed in 297 patients with available clinical data to identify factors associated with pathological discrepancy.
resultsD&C demonstrated almost perfect concordance with final pathology (κ = 0.846), whereas Pipelle biopsy showed moderate concordance (κ = 0.577; p < 0.05). In the Pipelle group, endometrial thickness on MRI and preoperative histology were independently associated with pathological discrepancies. Patients with G1 EEC and endometrial thickness > 4.00 cm, and those with G2, G3, or NEEC and thickness > 0.40 cm, had a significantly increased risk of discordance.
conclusionsDiagnostic concordance was higher for D&C than for Pipelle biopsy. In selected high-risk patients, particularly those with higher-grade histology or increased endometrial thickness, D&C may be considered to improve preoperative pathological assessment and support surgical decision-making.
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.