Endometrial Cancer: Screening, Diagnosis, and Surgical Staging

  • Annekathryn GoodmanEmail author
Part of the Current Clinical Oncology book series (CCO)


Environmental and hereditary factors contribute to increased risk of developing endometrial cancer. An understanding of risk factors can guide screening modalities in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Attention is drawn to certain anatomic abnormalities that prevent vaginal bleeding—the most common symptom related to cancer. Diagnostic tests that are available to pursue various aspects of the diagnosis in a sequential fashion are described, the most important of which is the endometrial biopsy. Recommendations for screening and diagnosis in the asymptomatic as well as the symptomatic patients are summarized. Surgical staging represents the final event in the diagnostic workup. Instances when such staging can be modified to deal with various comorbidities are delineated.


Endometrial cancer Heredity Screening Endometrial biopsy Surgical staging 


  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al. GLOBOCAN 2008 v1.2, Cancer Incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10 [Internet] Lyon. France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010. Available from: Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bokhman JV. Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1983;15(1):10–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doll A, Abal M, Rigau M, et al. Novel molecular profiles of endometrial cancer-new light through old windows. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2008;108(3–5):221–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mutter GL, Zaino RJ, Baak JP, et al. Benign endometrial hyperplasia sequence and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2007;26(2):103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Felix AS, Weissfeld JL, Stone RA, et al. Factors associated with Type I and Type II endometrial cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21(11):1851–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hale GE, Hughes CL, Cline JM. Endometrial cancer: hormonal factors, the perimenopasual “window at risk”, and isoflavones. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;87:3–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salilew-Wondim D, Wang Q, Tesfaye D, et al. Polycystic ovarian syndrome is accompanied by repression of gene signatures associated with biosynthesis and metabolism of steroids, cholesterol and lipids. J Ovarian Res. 2015;8:24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ezeh U, Yildiz BO, Azziz R. Referral bias in defining the phenotype and prevalence of obesity in polycystic ovary syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(6):E1088–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schlechte J, Sherman B, Halmi N, et al. Prolactin-secreting pituitary tumors in amenorrheic women: a comprehensive study. Endocr Rev. 1980;1(3):295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosato V, Zucchetto A, Bosetti C, et al. Metabolic syndrome and endometrial cancer risk. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:884–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trabert B, Wentzensen N, Felix AS, et al. Metabolic syndrome and risk of endometrial cancer in the United States: a study in the SEER-Medicare linked database. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015;24(1):261–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindemann K, Vatten LJ, Ellstrom-Engh M, et al. Body mass, diabetes and smoking, and endometrial cancer risk: a follow-up study. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:1582–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haroon S, Zia A, Idrees R, et al. Clinicopathological spectrum of ovarian sex cord-stromal tumors; 20 years’ retrospective study in a developing country. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6:87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silva KR, Liechocki S, Carneiro JR, et al. Stromal-vascular fraction content and adipose stem cell behavior are altered in morbid obese and post bariatric surgery ex-obese women. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2015;6(1):72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park SL, Goodman MT, Zhang ZF, et al. Body size, adult BMI gain and endometrial cancer risk: the multiethnic cohort. Int J Cancer. 2010;126(2):490–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weiderpass E, Adami H-O, Baron JA, et al. Risk of endometrial cancer following estrogen replacement with and without progestins. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(13):1131–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zacharias BT, Coelho JC, Parolin MB, et al. Hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal function in men with liver cirrhosis before and after liver transplantation. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2014;41(6):421–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rydén L, Heibert Arnlind M, Vitols S, et al. Aromatase inhibitors alone or sequentially combined with tamoxifen in postmenopausal early breast cancer compared with tamoxifen or placebo - meta-analyses on efficacy and adverse events based on randomized clinical trials. Breast. 2016;26:106–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ACOG. American College of Obstetrician Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 663: aromatase inhibitors in gynecologic practice. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(6):e170–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lowry KP, Turan EA, Eisenberg J, et al. Projected effects of radiation-induced cancers on life expectancy in patients undergoing CT surveillance for limited-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: a Markov model. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(6):1228–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mills AM, Longacre TA. Lynch syndrome: female genital tract cancer diagnosis and screening. Surg Pathol Clin. 2016;9(2):201–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ACOG American College of Obstetrician Gynecologists. Committee on practice bulletins-gynecology and society of gynecologic oncology. ACOG practice bulletin No. 147: lynch syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:1042–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levine DA, Lin O, Barakat RR, et al. Risk of endometrial cancer associated with BRCA mutation. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80:395–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neto N, Cunha TM. Do hereditary syndrome-related gynecologic cancers have any specific features? Insights Imaging. 2015;6(5):545–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anderson B. Diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1986;13:739–50.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pellerin GP, Finan MA. Endometrial cancer in women 45 years of age or younger: a clinicopathological analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(5):1640–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Argall E, Jovanovic A, Figueroa R, et al. Effects of endometrial ablation on treatment planning in women with endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(2):281–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ACOG. American College of Obstetrician Gynecologists. Committee Opinion No. 557. Management of acute abnormal uterine bleeding in nonpregnant reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):891–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Havig K. The health care experiences of adult survivors of child sexual abuse: a systematic review of evidence on sensitive practice. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2008;9(1):19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kingnate C, Tangiitgamol S, Khunnarong J, et al. Abnormal uterine cervical cytology in a large tertiary hospital in Bangkok metropolis: Prevalence, management, and outcomes. Indian J Cancer. 2016;53:67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Serdy K, Yildiz-Aktas I, Li Z, et al. The value of papanicolaou tests in the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma: a large study cohort from an academic medical center. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;145(3):350–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goodman A. Human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer. BMJ. 2015;350:h2372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Clark TJ, Mann CH, Shah N, et al. Accuracy of outpatient endometrial biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer: a systemic quantitative review. BJOG. 2002;109:313–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gungorduk K, Asicioglu O, Ertas IE, et al. Comparison of the histopathological diagnoses of preoperative dilatation and curettage and Pipelle biopsy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2014;35(5):539–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bredella MA, Feldstein VA, Filly RA, et al. Measurement of endometrial thickness at US in multicenter drug trials: value of central quality assurance reading. Radiology. 2000;217:516–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim M-J, Kim J-J, Kim SM. Endometrial evaluation with transvaginal ultrasonography for the screening of endometrial hyperplasia or cancer in premenopausal and perimenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2016;59(3):192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Love CD, Muir BB, Scrimgeour JB, et al. Investigation of endometrial abnormalities in asymptomatic women treated with tamoxifen and an evaluation of the role of endometrial screening. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2050–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schwartz LB, Snyder J, Horan C, et al. The use of transvaginal ultrasound and saline infusion sonohysyerography for the evaluation of aymptomatic postmenopausal breast cancer patients on tamoxifen. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;11:48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chawla I, Tripathi S, Vohra P, et al. To evaluate the accuracy of saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) for evaluation of uterine cavity abnormalities in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014;64(3):197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Arnaiz J, Muñoz AB, Verna V, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the pre-surgical assessment of endometrial cancer: results in a routine clinical setting, outside dedicated trials; a cross-sectional study. Anticancer Res. 2016;36(4):1891–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Signorelli M, Crivellaro C, Buda A, et al. Staging of high-risk endometrial cancer with PET/CT and sentinel lymph node mapping. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(10):780–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mutch DG. The new FIGO staging system for cancers of the vulva, cervix, endometrium, and sarcomas. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;115:325–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, et al. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. Cancer. 1987;60:2035–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liang LW, Perez AR, Cangemi NA, et al. An assessment of prognostic factors, adjuvant treatment, and outcomes of stage IA polyp-limited versus endometrium-limited type II endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(3):497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mäenpää MM, Nieminen K, Tomás EI, et al. Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; pii: S0002–9378(16)30314–3.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wright JD, Burke WM, Tergas AI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1087–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hall TR, Lee S, Boruta DM, Goodman A. Medical device safety and surgical dissemination of unrecognized uterine malignancy: morcellation in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. Oncologist. 2015;20(11):1274–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Soliman PT, Slomovitz BM, Broaddus RR, et al. Synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary: a single institution review of 84 cases. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94:456–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Convery PA, Cantrell LA, Santo ND, et al. Retrospective review of an intraoperative algorithm to predict lymph node metastasis in low-grade endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123:65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Clark LH, Soper JT (2016) Endometrial cancer and the role of lymphadenectomy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 71(6):353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations