Evidence Hub

Preoperative and postoperative pathology concordance in endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia: A retrospective cohort study

Dimakos J, Nguyen DB, Zeng X, Smith JP, Mansour FW, Krishnamurthy S, Zakhari A

International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026

319 participants

Abstract

Objective: To assess the concordance between pre- and postoperative pathology in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) undergoing hysterectomy, and identify predictors of malignancy, including sampling method, progestin therapy, and surgical timing.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care academic center in Montreal, Canada, from January 2010 to July 2023. Patients undergoing hysterectomy for EIN were included. Demographics, progestin therapy, sampling method, time from biopsy to surgery, operative details, and final pathology were collected. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with malignant or benign outcomes.

Results: A total of 319 patients were included; 76 received preoperative progestins (medicated group), and 243 did not (unmedicated group). Pathology concordance was 71.2% overall (72.8% unmedicated, 65.8% medicated). Malignancy was found in 11.6% (12.8% unmedicated, 7.9% medicated); benign pathology in 17.2% (14.4% unmedicated, 26.3% medicated). Sampling method was not associated with concordance. In progestin-naïve patients, lower body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio [OR] 2.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-7.13) and premenopausal status (OR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.06-4.58) were associated with benign pathology. In progestin-treated patients, older age (OR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.22) and menopausal hormone therapy use (OR 16.85, 95% CI: 1.85-218.46) predicted malignancy, while longer time to surgery…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 319 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free