Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Differential Diagnosis of Benign Endometrial Tumors vs Malignant Endometrial Tumors

Zorancho Petanovski, Asim Kurjak

Keywords : Endometrial tumors, Three-dimensional ultrasonography, Three-dimensional/four-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography

Citation Information : Petanovski Z, Kurjak A. Differential Diagnosis of Benign Endometrial Tumors vs Malignant Endometrial Tumors. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2024; 18 (2):119-128.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-2019

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 21-06-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Preoperative diagnosis of endometrial pathology is essential for the outcome of treatment. It is important to preoperatively detect the malignant potential of changes and choose an adequate therapeutic approach. This is especially important for women who have not completed their reproduction in terms of choosing minimally invasive operative methods and preserving their fertile potential. It is very important to optimize the preoperative ultrasound examination of endometrial tumors concerning the differential diagnosis of an endometrial benign and malignant lesion, as well as the type of tumor, and to assess the degree of myometrial invasion of malignant lesions. The performance of the use of three-dimensional/four-dimensional (3D/4D) ultrasound in diagnostics, especially in the analysis of certain endometrial pathologies, has already been established and provides very useful information. However, the morphological and vascular characteristics might correlate with tumor stage, grade, and size, and that information could be of benefit in the assessment of the preoperative tumor and perhaps be used in risk evaluation in the future. Exploratory curettage and pathohistological findings of endometrial pathology are the gold standard, but in some cases, even these methods, which depend on several variables, do not provide a definitive, accurate diagnosis. This is why, in combination with new ultrasound techniques, the effectiveness of preoperative diagnosis of pathological changes in the endometrium increases.

PDF Share
  1. Concin N, Planchamp F, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021;31(12):1508–1529. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-003178
  2. Di Cello A, Rania E, Zuccalà V, et al. Failure to recognize preoperatively high-risk endometrial carcinoma is associated with a poor outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015;194:153–160. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.09.004
  3. van Hanegem N, Breijer MC, Khan KS, et al. Diagnostic evaluation of the endometrium in postmenopausal bleeding: an evidence-based approach. Maturitas 2011;68(2):155–164. DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.11.010
  4. Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D, Domali E, et al. A thin and regular endometrium on ultrasound is very unlikely in patients with endometrial malignancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29(6):674–679. DOI: 10.1002/uog.4031
  5. Epstein E, Valentin L. Gray-scale ultrasound morphology in the presence or absence of intrauterine fluid and vascularity as assessed by color Doppler for discrimination between benign and malignant endometrium in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28(1):89–95. DOI: 10.1002/uog.2782
  6. Leone FP, Timmerman D, Bourne T, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35(1):103–112. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7487
  7. Alcazar JL, Galvan R. Three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound scanning for the prediction of endometrial cancer in women with postmenopausal bleeding and thickened endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200(1):44.e1–44.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.027
  8. Yaman C, Habelsberger A, Tews G, et al. The role of three-dimensional volume measurement in diagnosing endometrial cancer in patients with postmenopausal bleeding. Gynecol Oncol 2008;110(3):390–395. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.04.029
  9. Kurjak A, Kupesic S, Sparac V, et al. Preoperative evaluation of pelvic tumors by Doppler and three-dimensional sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20(8):829–840. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2001.20.8.829
  10. Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Hajder E. Ultrasonic assessment of the postmenopausal uterus. Maturitas 2002;41(4):255–267. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5122(01)00306-1
  11. Alcázar JL, Galván R, Albela S, et al. Assessing myometrial infiltration by endometrial cancer: uterine virtual navigation with three-dimensional US. Radiology 2009;250(3):776–783. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2503080877
  12. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16(5):500–505. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x
  13. Epstein E, Fischerova D, Valentin L, et al. Ultrasound characteristics of endometrial cancer as defined by International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) consensus nomenclature: prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;51(6):818–828. DOI: 10.1002/uog.18909
  14. Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Zodan T. Staging of the endometrial carcinoma by three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound. Gyneacol Perinatol 1999;8:1–7.
  15. Zhao F, Xu Y, Zhang H, et al. Ultrasonographic findings of uterine carcinosarcoma. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2019;84(3):277–282. DOI: 10.1159/000481885
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.