Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods of Endometrial Evaluation

  • Chapter
Diagnosis of Endometrial Biopsies and Curettings

  • 90 Accesses

Abstract

There are several methods of sampling the endometrium. The “gold standard” is dilatation and curettage (D&C), which requires dilatation of the cervix to allow insertion of a curette into the endometrial cavity.1–5 This technique allows for the most thorough sampling of the endometrium but requires anesthesia for cervical dilatation. The curette is drawn across the anterior and posterior endometrial surfaces, scraping the tissue free. D&C also readily allows for a fractional curettage, with sampling of both the endometrial and the endocervical mucosa. Fractional sampling is especially useful for evaluating possible endocervical pathology, such as extension of endometrial adenocarcinoma to the endocervix.6

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Grimes DA: Diagnostic dilation and curettage. A reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;142:1–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith J, Schulman H: Current dilation and curettage. A need for revision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;65:516–518.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Droegemueller W: Diagnostic procedures. In: Comprehensive Gynecology. 2nd ed. Herbst AL, Mishell DR Jr, Stenchever MA, Droegemueller W, eds. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, 1992;213–251.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Swartz DP, Butler WJ: Normal and abnormal uterine bleeding. In: Te Linde’s Operative Gynecology. 7th ed. Thompson JD, Rock JA, eds. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1992;297–316.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Friedman F, Brodman ML: Endometrial sampling techniques. In: The Uterus: Pathology, Diagnosis and Management. Altchek A, Deligdish L, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991; 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caron C, Tetu B, Laberge P, Bellemare G, Raymond P-E: Endocervical involvement by endometrial carcinoma on fractional curettage: A clinicopathological study of 37 cases. Mod Pathol 1991;4:644–647.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nickelsen C: Diagnostic and curative value of uterine curettage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1980;65:693–697.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schlaerth JB, Morrow CP, Rodriguez M: Diagnostic and therapeutic curettage in gestational trophoblastic disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162: 1465–1471.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Daniel AG, Peters WA, III: Accuracy of office and operating room curettage in the grading of endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:612–614.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Berkowitz RS, Desai U, Goldstein DP, Driscoll SG, Marean AR, et al: Pretreatment curettage—A predictor of chemotherapy response in gestational trophoblastic disease. Gynecol Oncol 1980;10:39–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cowles TA, MagrinaJF, Masterson BJ, Capen CV: Comparison of clinical and surgical staging in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:413–416.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stock RJ, Kanbour L: A pre-hysterectomy curettage. Obstet Gynecol 1975;45:537–560.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Moller LMA, Berget A: Prehysterectomy curettage in women with uterine fibromyomata is not worthwhile. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993; 72:374–376.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Soothill PW, Alcock CJ, MacKenzie IZ: Discrepancy between curettage and hysterectomy histology in patients with stage I uterine malignancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:478–481.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Piver MS, Lele SB, Barlow JJ, Blumenson L: Paraaortic lymph node evaluation in stage I endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1982;59:97–100.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sant Cassia LJ, Weppelmann B, Shingleton, H, Soong SJ, Hatch K, et al: Management of early endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 35:362–366.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Feldman S, Berkowitz RS, Tosteson ANA: Cost-effectiveness of strategies to evaluate postmenopausal bleeding. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:968–975.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Koonings PP, Moyer DL, Grimes DA: A randomized clinical trial comparing Pipelle and Tis-u-trap for endometrial biopsy. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:293–295.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaunitz AM, Masciello A, Ostrowski M, Rovira EZ: Comparison of endometrial biopsy with the endometrial Pipelle and Vabra aspirator. J Reprod Med 1988;33:427–431.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hill GA, Herbert CM, III, Parker RA, Wentz AC: Comparison of late luteal phase endometrial biopsies using the Novak curette or Pipelle endometrial suction curette. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:443–446.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Eddowes HA, Read MD, Codling BW: Pipelle—A more acceptable technique for outpatient endometrial biopsy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97:961–962.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stovall TG, Photopulos GJ, Poston WM, Ling FW, Sandles LG: Pipelle endometrial sampling in patients with known endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:954–956.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Silver MM, Miles P, Rosa C: Comparison of Novak and Pipelle endometrial biopsy instruments. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:828–830.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stovall TG, Ling FW, Morgan PL: A prospective, randomized comparison of the Pipelle endometrial sampling device with the Novak curette. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:1287–1290.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fothergill DJ, Brown VA, Hill AS: Histological sampling of the endometrium—A comparison between formal curettage and the Pipelle sampler. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:779–780.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ferry J, Farnsworth A, Webster M, Wren B: The efficacy of the Pipelle endometrial biopsy in detecting endometrial carcinoma. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;33:76–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rodriguez GC, Yaqub N, King ME: A comparison of the Pipelle device and the Vabra aspirator as measured by endometrial denudation in hysterectomy specimens: The Pipelle device samples significantly less of the endometrial surface than the Vabra aspirator. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168:55–59.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Check JH, Chase TS, Nowroozi K, Wu CH, Chern R: Clinical evaluation of the Pipelle endometrial suction curette for timed endometrial biopsy. J Reprod Med 1989;34:218–220.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Henig I, Chan P, Treadway PR, Maw BM, Gullett AJ, et al: Evaluation of the Pipelle curette for endometrial biopsy. J Reprod Med 1989;34: 786–789.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Einerth Y: Vacuum curettage by the Vabra method. A simple procedure for endometrial diagnosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982;61: 373–376.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Stubblefield PM: Conception control: Contraception, sterilization, and pregnancy termination. In: Gynecology: Principles and Practice. 4th ed. Kist-ner RW, ed. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1986;583–621.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Grimes DA: Surgical management of abortion. In: Te Linde’s Operative Gynecology. 7th ed. Thompson JD, Rock JA, eds. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1992;317–342.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Loffer FD: Hysteroscopy with selective endometrial sampling compared with D&C for abnormal uterine bleeding. The value of a negative hystero-scopicview. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73: 16–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Friedler S, Margalioth EJ, Kafka I, Yaffe H: Incidence of post-abortion intra-uterine adhesions evaluated by hysteroscopy. A prospective study. Hum Reprod 1993;8:442–444.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Mencaglia L, Perino A, Hamou J: Hysteroscopy in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Reprod Med 1987 32:577–582.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Fraser IS: Hysteroscopy and laparoscopy in women with menorrhagia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1264–1269.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Wortman M, Daggett A: Hysteroscopic management of intractable uterine bleeding—A review of 103 cases. J Reprod Med 1993;38:505–510.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hellen EA, Coghill SB, Shaxted EJ: The histo-pathology of transcervical resection of the endometrium—An analysis of 200 cases. Histopathology 1993;22:361–365.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Valle RF: Technique of panoramic hysteroscopy. In: Diagnostic and Operative Hysteroscopy: A Text and Atlas. Baggish MS, Barbot J, Valle RF, eds. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1989;94–101.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Baggish MS: Contact hysteroscopy. In: Diagnostic and Operative Hysteroscopy: A Text and Atlas. Baggish MS, Barbot J, Valle RF, eds. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1989; 102–113.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Daniell JF, Kurtz BR, Ke RW: Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation using the rollerball electrode. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:329–332.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rogers PAW, Poison D, Murphy CR, Hosie M, Susil B, et al: Correlation of endometrial histology, morphometry, and ultrasound appearance after different stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1991;55:583–587.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Fleischer AC, Gordon AN, Entman SS, Kepple DM: Transvaginal scanning of the endometrium. J Clin Ultrasound 1990;18:337–349.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Nasri MN, Coast GJ: Correlation of ultrasound findings and endometrial histopathology in postmenopausal women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96:1333–1338.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Khalifa E, Brzyski RG, Oehninger S, Acosta AA, Muasher SJ: Sonographic appearance of the endometrium—The predictive value for the outcome of in vitro fertilization in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 1992;7:677–680.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Dorum A, Kristensen GB, Langebrekke A, Sornes T, Skaar O: Evaluation of endometrial thickness measured by endovaginal ultrasound in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993;72:116–119.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Dickey RP, Olar TT, Curole DN, Taylor SN, Rye PH: Endometrial pattern and thickness associated with pregnancy outcome after assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod 1992; 7:418–421.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Sheth S, Hamper UM, Kurman RJ: Thickened endometrium in the postmenopausal woman—sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993;87:135–139.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dickey RP, Olar TT, Taylor SN, Curole DN, Ma-tulich EM: Relationship of endometrial thickness and pattern to fecundity in ovulation induction cycles—Effect of clomiphene citrate alone and with human menopausal gonadotropin. Fertil Steril 1993;59:756–760.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Doherty CM, Silver B, Binor Z, Molo MW, Radwanska E: Transvaginal ultrasound and the assessment of luteal phase endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:1702–1709.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Smith P, Bakos O, Heimer G, Ulmsten U: Transvaginal ultrasound for identifying endometrial abnormality. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991;70: 591–594.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Fleischer AC, Gordon AN, Entman SS, Keple DM: Transvaginal sonography of the endometrium: Current and potential clinical applications. In: The Principles and Practice of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 4th ed. Fleischer AC, Romero R, Manning FA, Jeanty P, James AE, Jr, eds. Norwalk: Appleton and Lange, 1991;583–596.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Varner RE, Sparks JM, Cameron CD, Roberts LL, Soong S: Transvaginal sonography of the endometrium in postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:195–199.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Goldchmit R, Katz Z, Blickstein I, Caspi B, Dgani R: The accuracy of endometrial Pipelle sampling with and without sonographic measurement of endometrial thickness. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82: 727–730.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Grunfeld L, Walker B, Bergh PA, Sandler B, Hoffmann G, et al: High-resolution endovaginal ultrasonography of the endometrium: A noninvasive test for endometrial adequacy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:200–204.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Fleischer AC, Cartwright PS, Pennell RG, Sacks GA: Sonography of ectopic pregnancy with transabdominal and transvaginal scanning. In: The Principles and Practice of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 4th ed. Fleischer AC, Romero R, Manning FA, Jeanty P, James AE, Jr, eds. Norwalk: Appleton and Lange, 1991;57–76.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Fleischer AC, Gordon AN: Sonography of trophoblastic diseases. In: The Principles and Practice of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 4th ed. Fleischer AC, Romero R, Manning FA, Jeanty P, James AE, Jr, eds. Norwalk: Appleton and Lange, 1991;501–508.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Romero R, Horgan JG, Kohorn EI, Kadar N, Taylor KJW, et al: New criteria for the diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:553–558.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Berkowitz RS, Birnholz J, Goldstein DP, Bernstein MR: Pelvic ultrasonography and the management of gestational trophoblastic disease. Gynecol Oncol 1983;15:403–412.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Lange RC, Buberg AC, McCarthy SM: An evaluation of MRI contrast in the uterus using synthetic imaging. Magn Reson Med 1991 ;17: 27–284.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Brown HK, Stoll BS, Nicosia SV, Florica JV, Hambley PS, et al: Uterine junctional zone: Correlation between histologic findings and MR imaging. Radiology 1991;179:409–413.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Scoutt LM, Flynn SD, Luthringer DJ, McCauley TR, McCarthy SM: Junctional zone of the uterus: Correlation of MR imaging and histologic examination of hysterectomy specimens. Radiology 1991;179:403–407.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Brown JJ, Thurnher S, Hricak H: MR imaging of the uterus: Low-signal-intensity abnormalities of the endometrium and endometrial cavity. Magn Reson Imaging 1990;8:309–313.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Barton JW, McCarthy SM, Kohorn EI, Scoutt LM, Lange RC: Pelvic MR imaging findings in gestational trophoblastic disease, incomplete abortion, and ectopic pregnancy: Are they specific? Radiology 1993;186:163–168.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Buckley CH, Fox H: Biopsy Pathology of the Endometrium. New York: Raven Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kepes JJ, Oswald O: Tissue artefacts caused by sponge in embedding cassettes. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:810–812.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Carson SA, Buster JE: Ectopic pregnancy. N Engl JMed 1993;329:1174–1181.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Azumi N, Czernobilsky B: Immunohistochemistry. In: Blaustein’s Pathology of the Female Genital Tract. 4th ed. Kurman RJ, ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994; 1131–1159.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Felix JC, Sherrod AE, Taylor GR: Gynecologic and testicular neoplasms. In: Immunomicros-copy: A Diagnostic Tool for the Surgical Pathologist. 2nd ed. Taylor CR, Cote RJ, eds. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Go., 1994;236–255.

    Google Scholar 

  70. O’Connor DM, Kurman RJ: Intermediate tro-phoblast in uterine curettings in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72: 665–670.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Kaspar HG, To T, Dinh TV: Clinical use of im-munoperoxidase markers in excluding ectopic gestation. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:433–437.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Daya D, Sabet L: The use of cytokeratin as a sensitive and reliable marker for trophoblastic tissue. Am J Clin Pathol 1991;95:137–141.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Yeh IT, O’Connor DM, Durman RJ: Intermediate trophoblast: Further immunocytochemical characterization. Mod Pathol 1990;3:282–287.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Sorensen FB, Marcussen N, Daugaard HO, Kristiansen JD, Moller J, et al: Immunohistological demonstration of intermediate trophoblast in the diagnosis of uterine versus ectopic pregnancy—A retrospective survey and results of a prospective trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98:463–469.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Kurman RJ, Main CS, Chen HC: Intermediate trophoblast: A distinctive form of trophoblast with specific morphological, biochemical and functional features. Placenta 1984;5:349–370.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Angel E, Davis JR, Nagle RB: Immunohistochemical demonstration of placental hormones in the diagnosis of uterine versus ectopic pregnancy. Am J Clin Pathol 1985;84:705–709.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Kurman RJ, Young RH, Norris HJ, Main CS, Lawrence WD, et al: Immunocytochemical localization of placental lactogen and chorionic gonadotropin in the normal placenta and trophoblastic tumors, with emphasis on intermediate trophoblast and the placental site trophoblastic tumor. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1984;3:101–121.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Young RE, Kurman RJ, Scully RE: Proliferations and tumors of intermediate trophoblast of the placental site. Semin Diagn Pathol 1988; 5:223–237.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Brescia RJ, Kurman RJ, Main CS, Surti U, Szulman AE: Immunocytochemical localization of chorionic gonadotropin, placental lactogen, and placental alkaline phosphatase in the diagnosis of complete and partial hydatidiform moles. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1987;6:213–229.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Nakamura Y, Moritsuka Y, Ohta Y, Itoh S, Haratake A, et al: S-100 protein in glands within decidua and cervical glands during early pregnancy. Hum Pathol 1989;20:1204–1209.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Agarwal S, Singh UR: Immunoreactivity with S100 protein as an indicator of pregnancy. Indian J Med Res 1992;96:24–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Dabbs DJ, Geisinger KR, Norris HT: Intermediate filaments in endometrial and endocervical carcinomas. The diagnostic utility of vimentin patterns. AmJ Surg Pathol 1986;10:568–576.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Tamimi HK, Gown AM, Kimdeobald J, Figge DC, Greer BE, et al: The utility of immunocytochemistry in invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166:1655–1662.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Cohen C, Shulman G, Budgeon LR: Endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: An immuno-peroxidase and histochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 1982;6:151–157.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Maes G, Fleuren GJ, Bara J, Nap M: The distribution of mucins, carcinoembryonic antigen, and mucus-associated antigens in endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1988;7:112–122.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Debrito PA, Silverberg SG, Orenstein JM: Carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed mullerian (mesodermal) tumor) of the female genital tract—Immuno-histochemical and ultrastructural analysis of 28 cases. Hum Pathol 1993;24:132–142.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. George E, Manivel JC, Dehner LP, Wick MR: Malignant mixed mullerian tumors: An immuno-histochemical study of 47 cases, with histogenetic considerations and clinical correlation. Hum Pathol 1991;22:215–223.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Geisinger KR, Dabbs DJ, Marshall RB: Malignant mixed mullerian tumors. An ultrastructural and immunohistochemical analysis with histogenetic considerations. Cancer 1987;59:1781–1790.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Auerbach HE, Livolsi VA, Merino MJ: Malignant mixed mullerian tumors of the uterus. An immunohistochemical study. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1988;7:123–130.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Meis JM, Lawrence WD: The immunohistochemical profile of malignant mixed mullerian tumor. Overlap with endometrial adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 1990;94:1–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Costa MJ, Khan R, Judd R: Carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed mullerian [mesodermal] tumor) of the uterus and ovary. Correlation of clinical, pathologic, and immunohistochemical features in 29 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1991 ;115:583–590.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Bitterman P, Chun B, Kurman RJ: The significance of epithelial differentiation in mixed mesodermal tumors of the uterus. A clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 1990;14:317–328.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Far hood AI, Abrams J: Immunohistochemistry of endometrial stromal sarcoma. Hum Pathol 1991;22:224–230.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Franquemont DW, Frierson HF, Mills SE: An immunohistochemical study of normal endometrial stroma and endometrial stromal neoplasms —Evidence for smooth muscle differentiation. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:861–870.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Lillemoe TJ, Perrone T, Norris HJ, Dehner LP: Myogenous phenotype of epithelial-like areas in endometrial stromal sarcomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1991;115:215–219.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Barr NJ, Taylor CR: Approach to the “unknown primary”—Anaplastic tumors. In: Immuno-microscopy: A Diagnostic Tool for the Surgical Pathologist. 2nd ed. Taylor GR, Cote RJ, eds. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1994; 368–400.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Taylor CR: Lymphoma/hematopathology: The antibodies. In: Immunomicroscopy: A diagnostic Tool for the Surgical Pathologist. 2nd ed. Taylor CR, Cote RJ, eds. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1994;71–106.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Crouse Irving Memorial Hospital, Health Science Center, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA

    Michael T. Mazur M.D.

  2. Departments of Gynecology and Obstetrics and Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Robert J. Kurman M.D.

  3. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Robert J. Kurman M.D.

Authors
  1. Michael T. Mazur M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert J. Kurman M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mazur, M.T., Kurman, R.J. (1995). Methods of Endometrial Evaluation. In: Diagnosis of Endometrial Biopsies and Curettings. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3943-5_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3943-5_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-3945-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-3943-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation