Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 36 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 171 - 176 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561 İndeks Tarihi: 04-06-2022

Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis

Öz:
Hysterectomy is one of the most common operations in gynecology. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of occult gynecologic malignancies in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. METHODS In this retrospective study, the medical records of patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications between 2009-2019 were evaluated using the hospital’s electronic system. RESULTS During the study period, 1630 cases underwent hysterectomy for benign indications. The mean age of the patients was 48.4±6.9 years. The most common indications for hysterectomy were leiomyoma (n=788, 48.3%) and abnormal uterine bleeding (n=539, 33.1%). In the final histopathological evaluation results, malignancy was identified in 12 cases (0.73%), and the mean age of these cases was 50.41±12 years. These malignancies included four leiomyosarcomas (33.33%), one endometrial sarcoma (8.33%), two endometrial adenocarcinomas (16.66%), four ovarian carcinomas (33.33%), and one ovarian fibrosarcoma (8.33%). Preoperative endometrial sampling was performed in 1160 cases (71.16%). All of the occult malignant cases had preoperative endometrial sampling and no malignancy was observed in the endometrial pathology results. CONCLUSION Unexpected malignancy rate in women who underwent hysterectomies for benign indications was 0.73%, and 58.3% of them were related to the uterus, and 41.6% were related to ovarian tissues. Occult uterine and ovarian malignancies may be observed in hysterectomies performed for benign indications. Detailed preoperative evaluation is essential to avoid the increased risk of mortality and morbidity caused by late diagnosis of malignancy.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Spilsbury K, Semmens JB, Hammond I, Bolck A. Persistent high rates of hysterectomy in Western Australia: a population-based study of 83 000 procedures over 23 years. BJOG 2006;113(7):804–9
  • 2. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114(5):1156–8.
  • 3. Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Lu YS, et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122(2 Pt 1):233–41.
  • 4. Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(2):CD003677.
  • 5. Madhvani K, Curnow T, Carpenter T. Route of hysterectomy: a retrospective, cohort study in English NHS Hospitals from 2011 to 2017. BJOG. 2019;126(6):795–802.
  • 6. Nicholls-Dempsey L, Kamga-Ngande C, Bélisle S, Lapensée L, Roy G, Tremblay C, et al. Endometrial biopsy in an outpatient gynaecological setting: overinvestigation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018;40(10):1309–14.
  • 7. Hanligil E, Ekici MA. Is it necessary to perform an endometrial sampling prior to hysterectomies for benign conditions? Exp Biomed Res 2019;2(2):76–84.
  • 8. Mahnert N, Morgan D, Campbell D, Johnston C, As- Sanie S. Unexpected gynecologic malignancy diagnosed after hysterectomy performed for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125(2):397–405.
  • 9. Topdagi Yilmaz EP, Cimilli Senocak GN, Topdagi YE, Aynaoglu Yildiz G, Kumtepe Y. Incidence of occult malignancies identified during hysterectomies performed for benign indications. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2020;49(3):101620.
  • 10. Neis KJ, Zubke W, Fehr M, Römer T, Tamussino K, Nothacker M. Hysterectomy for benign uterine disease. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2016;113(14):242–9.
  • 11. Parsons LHP, Pedersen R, Richardson DL, Kho KA. The prevalence of occult endometrial cancer in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;223:108–12.
  • 12. Pessoa JN, Freitas AC, Guimaraes RA, Lima J, Dos Reis HL, Filho AC. Endometrial assessment: when is it necessary? J Clin Med Res 2014;6(1):21–5.
  • 13. Khafaga A, Goldstein SR. Abnormal uterine bleeding. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2019;46(4):595–605.
  • 14. Bansal N, Herzog TJ, Burke W, Cohen CJ, Wright JD. The utility of preoperative endometrial sampling for the detection of uterine sarcomas. Gynecol Oncol 2008;110(1):43–8.
  • 15. Yuk JS, Kim LY, Kim SH, Lee JH. The incidence of unexpected uterine malignancy in women undergoing hysterectomy for a benign condition: a national populationbased study. Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23(12):4029–34.
  • 16. Desai VB, Wright JD, Gross CP, Lin H, Boscoe FP, Hutchison LM, et al. Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors of occult uterine cancer in presumed benign hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;221(1):39.e1–39.e14.
APA GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU B, AKSOY A, ÖZMEN S, ULUĞ P, AYDIN Ö (2021). Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis. , 171 - 176. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
Chicago GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU Berrin,AKSOY Ayse Nur,ÖZMEN Sevilay Akalp,ULUĞ Paşa,AYDIN Özkan Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis. (2021): 171 - 176. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
MLA GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU Berrin,AKSOY Ayse Nur,ÖZMEN Sevilay Akalp,ULUĞ Paşa,AYDIN Özkan Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis. , 2021, ss.171 - 176. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
AMA GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU B,AKSOY A,ÖZMEN S,ULUĞ P,AYDIN Ö Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis. . 2021; 171 - 176. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
Vancouver GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU B,AKSOY A,ÖZMEN S,ULUĞ P,AYDIN Ö Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis. . 2021; 171 - 176. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
IEEE GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU B,AKSOY A,ÖZMEN S,ULUĞ P,AYDIN Ö "Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis." , ss.171 - 176, 2021. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
ISNAD GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU, Berrin vd. "Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis". (2021), 171-176. https://doi.org/10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
APA GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU B, AKSOY A, ÖZMEN S, ULUĞ P, AYDIN Ö (2021). Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, 36(2), 171 - 176. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
Chicago GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU Berrin,AKSOY Ayse Nur,ÖZMEN Sevilay Akalp,ULUĞ Paşa,AYDIN Özkan Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi 36, no.2 (2021): 171 - 176. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
MLA GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU Berrin,AKSOY Ayse Nur,ÖZMEN Sevilay Akalp,ULUĞ Paşa,AYDIN Özkan Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, vol.36, no.2, 2021, ss.171 - 176. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
AMA GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU B,AKSOY A,ÖZMEN S,ULUĞ P,AYDIN Ö Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi. 2021; 36(2): 171 - 176. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
Vancouver GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU B,AKSOY A,ÖZMEN S,ULUĞ P,AYDIN Ö Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi. 2021; 36(2): 171 - 176. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
IEEE GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU B,AKSOY A,ÖZMEN S,ULUĞ P,AYDIN Ö "Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis." Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, 36, ss.171 - 176, 2021. 10.5505/tjo.2020.2561
ISNAD GÖKTUĞ KADIOĞLU, Berrin vd. "Unexpected Malignancy Rate of 1630 Hysterectomies Performed for Benign Indications: A 10-year Retrospective Analysis". Türk Onkoloji Dergisi 36/2 (2021), 171-176. https://doi.org/10.5505/tjo.2020.2561