RESUMEN
Background@#The International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) group developed a catalog of standardized terms to describe findings that may be associated with uterine pathology. However, there is a lack of reliability studies for these descriptors in the literature.@*Objective@#The objective of this study was to estimate interobserver and intraobserver reliability with regard to the IETA group descriptors for endometrial vascular characteristics in women with abnormal uterine bleeding.@*Materials and Methods@#Five nonexpert and five expert raters assessed stored still images of transvaginal ultrasound examinations obtained from 68 women with abnormal uterine bleeding and endometrial thickening. Endometrial vascularity was evaluated using the IETA group descriptors for color flow and vascular pattern. Interobserver agreement was estimated by comparing the assessments of the nonexpert and expert raters. Intraobserver agreement was estimated by repeating the raters’ assessment after 4 weeks. Interrater agreement to the subjective assessment of an expert investigator was also computed.@*Results and Conclusion@#The reproducibility of assigning IETA color score is good regardless of the degree of expertise of the rater, although the experts displayed better interobserver reliability (κ = 0.74 vs. 0.57) and intraobserver reliability (κ = 0.84 vs. 0.63). However, the reproducibility of describing IETA vascular patterns is significantly worse for both expert and nonexpert raters in both interobserver reliability (experts κ = 0.49 vs. 0.34) and intraobserver reliability (experts κ = 0.65 vs. 0.42). Both expert and nonexpert raters exhibited acceptable agreement with the reference standard, with experts performing better for both color score (κ = 0.79 vs. 0.70) and vascular pattern (κ = 0.63 vs. 0.44).
Asunto(s)
EndometrioRESUMEN
Background: Abnormal Uterine Bleeding (AUB) is a very frequent cause of gynecological visits in women of all age groups. Ultrasound pelvis with or without endometrial sampling have been conventionally used to make diagnosis. Power Doppler is a comparatively recent modality which can be used to screen patients who will need endometrial biopsy/ curretage. We hereby conducted a study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of power Doppler sonography and hysteroscopy with histopathology associated with abnormal uterine bleeding. We also calculated the incidence of uterine pathology in AUB by power Doppler ultrasound and hysteroscopy and compared it with histopathology. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University. After excluding 42 women, a total of 100 women fulfilling the inclusion criteria contributed to our study. Selected women underwent power Doppler ultrasound and hysteroscopy with guided biopsy. Results were compared with histopathology as per the gold standard. Evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were performed for each modality. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS 11.0 statistical package. P value ?0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests used. Results: Sensitivity and specificity of power Doppler are 75% and 100% for carcinoma endometrium, 72.72% and 98.9% for endometrial hyperplasia, and 81.81% and 100% for endometrial polyp, respectively. Conclusion: Power Doppler sonography can be used to screen outpatients who do not need an endometrial biopsy for abnormal uterine bleeding. This will avoid unnecessary hysteroscopy in definitive benign cases, and watchful hysteroscopy in suspected premalignant and malignant cases. Irregular branching vessels and color splashes were found to be the best parameters for diagnosing endometrial carcinoma. Power Doppler should be done along with transvaginal sonography in all cases of abnormal uterine bleeding