Current practice in the removal of benign endometrial polyps: a Dutch survey

Removal of uterine polyps: clinical management and surgical approach

Endometrial polyps have a reported prevalence from 7.8% up to 30% and are one of the most cost-consuming gynecological conditions for our specialty. There are strong practitioner beliefs that surgical removal of endometrial polyps is highly beneficial, particularly for those with abnormal uterine bleeding and infertility. Additionally, polypectomy is indicated to reduce the risk of malignancy. Transvaginal ultrasound is the first-line diagnostic option for detection of endometrial polyps, while sonohysterography has similar accuracy as hysteroscopy in the diagnostic confirmation. Blind dilatation and curettage is not recommended for polyp removal; rather, hysteroscopy in the operating room and office setting using small-diameter hysteroscopic equipment is the standard approach. This can be performed without anesthesia in most women. While hysteroscopy is an effective method for polypectomy with a low complication rate, it is unknown whether this is truly beneficial for reproductive-age women with infertility and prior assisted reproduction therapy. The risk of malignancy in women with postmenopausal bleeding justifies the necessity of polypectomy with histologic tissue examination. In asymptomatic women, the risk of malignancy is low, and there are no known benefits of polyp removal in the prevention of malignant transformation. Cost-effective studies remain to be done to provide us with the optimal approach to endometrial polyps including the management of asymptomatic and/or infertile women, ideal location including office-based or the operating room setting, complication prevention including intrauterine adhesions, and recurrence issues.

Effectiveness of Hysteroscopic Techniques for Endometrial Polyp Removal: The Italian Multicenter Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of different techniques of hysteroscopic polypectomy.

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective observational trial (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Nineteen Italian gynecologic departments (university-affiliated or public hospitals).

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients suffering from endometrial polyps (EPs).

INTERVENTIONS

Hysteroscopic polypectomy, as performed through different techniques.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Included in the study were 1404 patients (with 1825 EPs). The setting was an ambulatory care unit in 40.38% of the cases (567 women), of whom 97.7% (554) did not require analgesia/anesthesia. In the remaining 59.62% of women (837 women), the procedures were performed in an operating room under mild sedation, local or general anesthesia. Minor complications occurred in 32 patients (2.27%), without significant differences between the techniques used (p = ns). Uterine perforation occurred in 14 cases, all performed in the operating room with some kind of anesthesia, only 1 with a vaginoscopic technique and the remaining during blind dilatation (odds ratio [OR], 19.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-335.79; p = .04). An incomplete removal of EPs was documented in 39 patients. Logistic regression analysis showed that a higher risk of residual EPs was associated with the use of a fiber-based 3.5-mm hysteroscope (OR, 6.78; 95% CI, 2.97-15.52; p <.001), the outpatient setting (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.14-4.14; p = .019), and EPs located at the tubal corner (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-2.79; p = .039). No association between incomplete EP removal and EP size or number was recorded (p = ns), as well as with the other variables evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient polypectomy was associated with a minimal but significantly higher risk of residual EPs in comparison with inpatient polypectomy. Conversely, inpatient polypectomy was associated with a considerably higher risk of uterine perforation and penetration in comparison with office hysteroscopy. Because of lower intraoperative risks and higher cost-effectiveness, office hysteroscopy may be considered, whenever possible, as the gold standard technique for removing EPs.

Endometrial Polyps and Subfertility

Endometrial polyps are frequently seen in subfertile women, and there is some evidence suggesting a detrimental effect on fertility. How polyps contribute to subfertility and pregnancy loss is uncertain and possible mechanisms are poorly understood. It may be related to mechanical interference with sperm transport, embryo implantation or through intrauterine inflammation or altered production of endometrial receptivity factors. Different diagnostic modalities such as two- or three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound, saline infusion sonography or hysteroscopy are commonly used to evaluate endometrial polyps with good detection rates. The approach of clinicians towards polyps detected during infertility investigations is not clearly known, and it is quite likely that there is wide variation amongst different groups. Most clinicians suggest hysteroscopy and polyp removal if a polyp is suspected before stimulation for in vitro fertilisation or a frozen embryo transfer cycle. However, the clinical evidence and benefit of different management options during assisted reproduction technology cycles are conflicting. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one particular option over others when a polyp is suspected during stimulation for in vitro fertilisation. A properly designed randomized controlled trial is needed to determine the best treatment option. In this article, we present the available evidence and our practice related to different diagnostic modalities and management options. We also discuss the available literature relevant to the management of endometrial polyps in relation to natural conception, intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilisation.

A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding

BACKGROUND

Uterine polyps cause abnormal bleeding in women and conventional practice is to remove them in hospital under general anaesthetic. Advances in technology make it possible to perform polypectomy in an outpatient setting, yet evidence of effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) associated with benign uterine polyp(s), outpatient polyp treatment achieved as good, or no more than 25% worse, alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months compared with standard inpatient treatment. The hypothesis that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB, menopausal status and longer-term follow-up was tested. The cost-effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy was examined.

DESIGN

A multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, incorporating a cost-effectiveness analysis and supplemented by a parallel patient preference study. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study.

SETTING

Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics and inpatient gynaecology departments within UK NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with AUB - defined as heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly known as menorrhagia) (HMB), intermenstrual bleeding or postmenopausal bleeding - and hysteroscopically diagnosed uterine polyps.

INTERVENTIONS

We randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy as a day case in hospital under general anaesthesia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was successful treatment at 6 months, determined by the woman's assessment of her bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, procedure feasibility, acceptability and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

At 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were successfully treated compared with 80% (168/211) following inpatient polypectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.02]. The lower end of the CIs showed that outpatient polypectomy was at most 18% worse, in relative terms, than inpatient treatment, within the 25% margin of non-inferiority set at the outset of the study. By 1 and 2 years the corresponding proportions were similar producing RRs close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed according to any of the predefined subgroups when treatments by variable interaction parameters were examined. Failure to completely remove polyps was higher (19% vs. 7%; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1) with outpatient polypectomy. Procedure acceptability was reduced with outpatient compared with inpatient polyp treatment (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at 6 and 12 months for inpatient treatment were £1,099,167 and £668,800 per additional QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months, and relatively cost-effective. However, patients need to be aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient polypectomy and procedure acceptability lower.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 65868569.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Malignant and premalignant changes in the endometrium of women with an ultrasound diagnosis of endometrial polyp

The association between polyps and endometrial cancer is under debate. The main objectives of this study were to study the frequency and the characteristics of malignant and premalignant endometrial changes in women with endometrial polyp at ultrasound. The study population consisted of 1,390 consecutive patients that were referred to office hysteroscopy because of the ultrasonographic diagnosis of endometrial polyps. A total of 16 cases of endometrial neoplasia were diagnosed (1.15%). The frequencies of atypia and cancer in our population were 0.14% and 1.01%, respectively. All patients, except one, were postmenopausal (93.8%). All had undergone the initial ultrasonographic assessment because of symptoms (bleeding in the 93.8%). The neoplasia was not confined to the polyp in 75% of the cases. Nine cases had a lower risk disease (56.25%; atypical hyperplasia or endometrial cancer stage IA-G1,2), while seven had a higher risk cancer (43.75%; ≥ stage IA-G3). Patients with a higher risk disease were found to be significantly younger, and their polyps were smaller, albeit non-significantly. In spite of the common practice to refer all women with an ultrasound diagnosis of polyp to hysteroscopy, our data show how the prevalence of endometrial neoplasia in these patients is low (1.15%). Moreover, the malignancy is not confined to a polyp in most of the cases.