Sixty-three endometrial biopsies were dated histologically by using the standard criteria on two separate occasions by the same observer. Overall, it was found that exact agreement occurred in 15 (24%), but disagreement of more than 2 days occurred in 6 (10%). The proportion of exact agreement in the first half of the luteal phase (32%) was found to be significantly higher (P less than 0.05) than that in the second half of the luteal phase (9%). In a separate part of the study, 27 women had two endometrial biopsies, each performed in a separate cycle. The within-subject between-cycle variation of the results of endometrial dating (exact agreement: 4%, disagreement of more than 2 days: 41%) was found to be significantly different from intraobserver variation (P less than 0.01 for both). The amount of intraobserver variation suggests that the traditional dating criteria are not precise enough to quantify corpus luteum function in the second half of the luteal phase, whereas the amount of within-subject between-cycle variation implies that the result of endometrial dating in one cycle cannot be used reliably to predict that of another cycle.
endometrial dating precision histologic criteria Noyes, endometrial biopsy intraobserver variability luteal phase, histologic dating endometrium reproducibility accuracy, endometrial biopsy corpus luteum function assessment, within-subject between-cycle variation endometrial dating, luteal phase defect endometrial biopsy reliability, standard dating criteria endometrium limitations, Li TC Dockery endometrial dating precision, secretory phase endometrium histological assessment variability, endometrial dating first versus second half luteal phase
PMID 2651164 2651164 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60662-3 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60662-3 Li et al. 1989, Li 1989
Cite this article
Li, T. C., Dockery, P., Rogers, A. W., & Cooke, I. D. (1989). How precise is histologic dating of endometrium using the standard dating criteria?. Fertility and sterility, 51(5), 759-763. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60662-3
Li TC, Dockery P, Rogers AW, Cooke ID. How precise is histologic dating of endometrium using the standard dating criteria?. Fertil Steril. 1989;51(5):759-763. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60662-3
Li, T. C., et al. "How precise is histologic dating of endometrium using the standard dating criteria?." Fertility and sterility, vol. 51, no. 5, 1989, pp. 759-763.
To characterize the extent and sources of imprecision in histologic dating of the endometrial biopsy. Duplicate endometrial biopsies from 25 women were dated by five evaluators on two separate occasions to evaluate the overall precision of the measure. Using variance component analysis, estimates of intrauterine, intraevaluator, and interevaluator variability were determined. Samples were obtained during outpatient fertility testing. Evaluators were colleagues at the same institution. PATIENTS, Women presenting with infertility undergoing routine evaluation. None. Variability in histologic dating of the endometrium. Inconsistencies between evaluators accounted for 65% of the observed variability, whereas 27% was because of inconsistencies in duplicate readings by the same evaluator. Regional differences in the uterus accounted for only 8% of the total variability. The overall error from these sources have the potential to result in a substantial false-positive rate for diagnosis of luteal phase defect.
To determine the magnitude of intraobserver variation in dating endometrial biopsies and its impact on clinical management. Blinded histopathologic interpretation of endometrial biopsy specimens 1 year apart by five pathologists. Large military tertiary care center. Endometrial biopsy specimens from 51 patients undergoing evaluation for potential luteal phase defects. None. Calculation of the magnitude of the individual and overall intraobserver variation in endometrial dating for the five pathologists and estimation of its potential impact on clinical management. The intraobserver variation was 0.69 +/- 0.05 days (means +/- SE). There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the variation for 1-day or 2-day dating ranges. The theoretical probability of altering clinical management by having the same pathologist redate a given specimen ranged from 15% to 28%. Histologic dating of endometrial biopsies is subject to a small but highly clinically significant intraobserver variability that may have a major impact on clinical management.
Endometrial biopsy specimens (n = 62) were evaluated by five pathologists to assess the effect of interobserver variation on histologic dating of the endometrium. The potential effect of this variation on the diagnosis of luteal phase defects (LPDs) and resulting clinical management was also determined. Mean (+/- standard error) interobserver variation was 0.96 +/- 0.08 days, comparable to results reported by other investigators. The magnitude of the variation was not affected by whether the biopsy specimen was obtained in the mid or late luteal phase, the degree of lag between the dating and subsequent menses, or the presence of an LPD. Redating of a specimen by another pathologist would have resulted in a change in the determination of "in" or "out" of phase in 22% of cases. The subsequent probability of changing patient management altered ranged from 22% to 39% depending on the clinical setting.
Endovaginal sonography of the endometrium demonstrates characteristic findings throughout the menstrual cycle. To correlate these findings with histologic criteria for normal endometrial development, we compared endometrial biopsies with ultrasonographic findings. Nineteen cycles were monitored in 18 women with ovarian failure whose endometrial cycles were induced exogenously by sequential transdermal 17 beta-estradiol (E2) and intramuscular progesterone. These subjects underwent ultrasonography of the endometrium prior to the day of progesterone initiation (luteal day +1) and continuing throughout the mid-secretory phase. On luteal day +1, ultrasonography characteristically demonstrated a multilayered endometrium consisting of a hyperechoic perimeter (endometrial-myometrial interface), a hypoechoic inner layer, and a hyperechoic midline (luminal interface). By luteal day +7, a gradual increase in echogenicity of the inner layer was detected, while the inner myometrium remained hypoechoic. Eleven of 19 cycles demonstrated a completely hyperechoic endometrium on luteal day +7 and also demonstrated normal stromal development on endometrial biopsies. Three patients who had endometrial biopsies consistent with their chronological development failed to demonstrate a hyperechoic endometrium by luteal day +7. All five biopsies that were histologically out of phase were detected by ultrasonography. Thus, ultrasonography demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 62% for the detection of histologically normal endometrial development. Endometrial thickness could not be used to discriminate between biopsies that were normal (13 +/- 1.0 mm) and those out of phase (13.8 +/- 1.8 mm). Endometrial histology demonstrated asynchrony of glands and stroma in nine cases in which ultrasonography correlated with stromal, but not with glandular dating, suggesting that the increased echogenicity may reflect stromal edema.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)