Executive Summary of the Uterine Cancer Evidence Review Conference

Chelmow, David; Brooks, Rebecca; Cavens, Arjeme; Huber-Keener, Kathryn J.; Scott, Dana Marie; Sheth, Sangini S.; Whetstone, Sara; Worly, Brett; Burke, William M.

doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004711

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 166 publications

(213 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current review did not aim to assess the accuracy of endometrial sampling as a screening test in the general asymptomatic population. According to the most recent and rigorous recommendations, there is no study or major society guideline that recommend universal screening for EC in asymptomatic women 50 51…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sakna,

Elgendi,

Salama

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of different endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial carcinoma.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of studies of diagnostic accuracy.Data sourcesCochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus, from the date of inception of the databases to 18 January 2023. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched.Eligibility criteriaWe included published cross‐sectional studies that evaluated any endometrial sampling test (index tests) in women (participants) with clinical suspicion of endometrial carcinoma (target condition) in comparison with histopathology of hysterectomy specimens (reference standard). We excluded case–control and case series studies. No restrictions on language or date of publication were applied.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed study quality using the revised quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). We used bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis and presented the results in a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. We assessed the certainty of evidence as recommended by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach.ResultsTwelve studies (1607 participants), published between 1986 and 2022, contributed data to the meta-analysis results. Seven studies were judged to be at a low risk of bias in all domains and all studies had low applicability concerns. The most studied index tests were Pipelle and conventional dilation and curettage (D&C). The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio (95% CIs) for Pipelle were 0.774 (0.565 to 0.900), 0.985 (0.927 to 0.997), 97.000 (14.000 to 349.000) and 0.241 (0.101 to 0.442) and for conventional D&C were 0.880 (0.281 to 0.993), 0.984 (0.956 to 0.995), 59.300 (14.200 to 153.000) and 0.194 (0.007 to 0.732), respectively.ConclusionHigh certainty evidence indicates that endometrial sampling using Pipelle or conventional D&C is accurate in diagnosing endometrial cancer. Studies assessing other endometrial sampling tests were sparse.Trial registration numberhttps://osf.io/h8e9z.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sakna,

Elgendi,

Salama

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Methods for the evidence review and educational material development closely followed the process for the early-onset breast, uterine, and ovarian cancer projects. [1][2][3] This project also included panel members recruited from the ASCCP and the Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics and Gynecology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology. The initial literature search period was between January 2000 and June 2022.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Executive Summary of the Lower Anogenital Tract Cancer Evidence Review Conference

Chelmow

Cejtin

Conageski

et al. 2023

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sponsored a project conducted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to develop educational materials for clinicians on the prevention and early diagnosis of gynecologic cancers. For this final module, focusing on the cancers of the lower anogenital tract (vulva, vagina, and anus), a panel of experts in evidence assessment from the Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics and Gynecology, ASCCP, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology reviewed relevant literature and current guidelines. Panel members conducted structured literature reviews, which were then reviewed by other panel members. Representatives from stakeholder professional and patient advocacy organizations met virtually in September 2022 to review and provide comment. This article is the executive summary of the review. It covers prevention, early diagnosis, and special considerations of lower anogenital tract cancer. Knowledge gaps are summarized to provide guidance for future research.

show abstract

“…Overall methods for the evidence review process are outlined in detail in the companion summary, "Executive Summary of the Uterine Cancer Evidence Review Conference". 2 Key questions and PICO criteria (P5patient, problem, or population; I5intervention; C5comparison, control, or comparator; O5outcome [s]) for framing the health disparities review are listed in Box 1. Evidence Review Conference participants included representatives from stakeholder professional and patient advocacy organizations, including those representing historically and contemporaneously excluded populations, such as the Black Women's Health Imperative, the National LGBT Cancer Network, and the National Alliance for Hispanic Health.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%