Anne Timmermans

The Dutch national guideline on heavy menstrual bleeding was updated and published in 2013. It recommended (for the first time) that uterine artery embolization (UAE) should be part of counseling of women with symptomatic fibroids. We aimed to evaluate the implementation of UAE for symptomatic uterine fibroids in the Netherlands and to investigate gynecologists preference and other influential factors. The primary outcome was to examine the UAE/hysterectomy ratio before and after introduction of the 2013 guideline by the use of annual hospital reports. The secondary outcome assessed factors that could influence implementation by means of a questionnaire to gynecologists. A total of 29/30 (97%) UAE+ hospitals and 36/52 (69%) UAE- hospitals sent their annual reports. The UAE/hysterectomy percentages in 2012, 2013 and 2014 were 7,0%, 7.0% and 6.9%, respectively. Regarding the questionnaire, the response rates were 88% and 91%, respectively. In both groups we observed a high self-perceived tendency for UAE counseling (90% versus 70%, p = .001). Approximately 50% of gynecologists from UAE- hospitals indicate they have insufficient information about UAE for appropriate counseling and 40% doubts the effectiveness of UAE. Furthermore, in the majority of gynecologists some ‘urban myths’ about the effectiveness and side-effects of UAE seem to persevere. Adding UAE as a treatment option to the national guideline did not change the number of performed UAEs for symptomatic fibroids. It might be useful to develop an option grid in order to offer appropriate, independent counseling and encourage shared decision making.

Article: Endometrial SamPling befoRe or aftEr Saline infusion SOnography (ESPRESSO Trial): a national survey and a study protocol of a multicenter RCT - Minerva Ginecologica 2017 June;69(3):304-8 - Minerva Medica - Journals

Heavy menstrual bleeding is an important health problem. Two frequently used therapies are the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial ablation. The LNG-IUS can be applied easily by the general practitioner, which saves costs, but has considerable failure rates. As an alternative, endometrial ablation is also very effective, but this treatment has to be performed by a gynaecologist. Due to lack of direct comparison of LNG-IUS with endometrial ablation, there is no evidence based preferred advice for the use of one of these treatment possibilities. A multicenter randomised controlled trial, organised in a network infrastructure in the Netherlands in which general practitioners and gynaecologists collaborate. Women ≥ 34 years with heavy menstrual bleeding, a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) score exceeding 150 points and no future child wish can participate in the trial. After informed consent, women will be randomised to a strategy starting with a levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system or a strategy starting with endometrial ablation. The primary outcome is the PBAC score at 24 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes are patient satisfaction, complications, number of re-interventions, menstrual bleeding pattern, quality of life, sexual function, sick leave and costs. As predictors of effect of intervention we also meaure level of coagulation factors. This study, considering both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LNG-IUS versus endometrial ablation may well improve care for women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Dutch trial register, number NTR2984

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current practice of Dutch gynecologists in the removal of benign endometrial polyps and compare these results with the results of a previous study from 2003. In 2009 Dutch gynecologists were surveyed by a mailed questionnaire about polypectomy. Gynecologists answered questions about their individual performance of polypectomy: setting, form of anesthesia, method, and instrument use. The results were compared with the results from the previous survey. The response rate was 70% (585 of 837 gynecologists). Among the respondents, 455 (78%) stated to remove endometrial polyps themselves. Polyps were mostly removed in an inpatient setting (337; 74%) under general or regional anesthesia (247; 54%) and under direct hysteroscopic vision (411; 91%). Gynecologists working in a teaching hospital removed polyps more often in an outpatient setting compared with gynecologists working in a nonteaching hospital [118 (43%) vs. 35 (19%) p < 0.001]. These results are in accordance with the results from 2003. Compared to 2003 there was an increase in the number of gynecologists performing polypectomies with local or no anesthesia [211 (46%) vs. 98 (22%), p < 0.001]. An increase was also noted in the number of gynecologists using direct hysteroscopic vision [411 (91%) vs. 290 (64%), p < 0.001] and 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments [181 (44%) vs. 56 (19%), p < 0.001]. Compared to the situation in 2003, there is an increase in removal under direct hysteroscopic vision, with 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments, using local or no anesthesia. This implies there is progress in outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in the Netherlands.

The conclusion of a recent cost-effectiveness analysis shows that hysterectomy is the preferred strategy in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. However, this conclusion is not directly applicable in general daily practice. Deciding about certain treatment is not only based on the best-available treatment but also on the experience of a physician and more importantly, on the patient's preferences. For heavy menstrual bleeding, it is known that patients are willing to accept a treatment failure rate of up to 50% in order to avoid hysterectomy. Adequate knowledge on the different treatment options in terms of success, effectiveness, and quality of life are necessary to be able to give each patient solid advice regarding the different treatment options. Patients' preferences were not taken into account in the recent cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding; therefore, the results of the study are not directly applicable in daily practice.

Article first published online: 10 AUG 2009We describe the design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of endometrial polyp removal in women with postmenopausal bleeding. We designed a trial in which patients with postmenopausal bleeding and endometrial thickness >4 mm undergo hysteroscopy. If during hysteroscopy an endometrial polyp was diagnosed, patients were asked to participate in this trial and after informed consent allocated to immediate removal of the polyp or expectant management. This trial suffered from lack of recruitment related both to doctors seeking for informed consent as well as to patients’ unwillingness to participate in this trial. However, a randomised controlled trial on this subject is still necessary to evaluate the efficacy of uterine cavity evaluation in the diagnostic work-up of women with postmenopausal bleeding, focussing on benign pathology. Therefore, we propose an alternative design, which might be more feasible.A Timmermans, S Veersema, TC van Kerkvoorde, LF van der Voet, BC Opmeer, MY Bongers, BWJ Mo

To estimate the incidence of recurrent postmenopausal bleeding among women who were diagnosed with an endometrial thickness greater than 4 mm. We designed a prospective cohort study and included consecutive women not using hormone replacement therapy, presenting with a first episode of postmenopausal bleeding. We evaluated patients who had an endometrial thickness greater than 4 mm at transvaginal ultrasonography and benign endometrial sampling; presence of carcinoma was ruled out by office endometrial sampling, hysteroscopy, and/or dilation and curettage. Time until recurrent bleeding was measured, and diagnosis at recurrent bleeding was recorded. Among 318 patients who had an endometrial thickness greater than 4 mm, 222 patients had benign histology results and were available for follow-up. During follow-up, 47 (21%, 95% confidence interval 16-27%) patients had recurrent bleeding, with a median time to recurrent bleeding of 49 weeks (interquartile range 18 to 86 weeks). There was no difference with respect to recurrence rate between patients with polyp removal, patients with a normal hysteroscopy, and patients with office endometrial sampling alone at the initial workup. Two patients were diagnosed with atypical endometrial hyperplasia upon recurrent bleeding. The recurrence rate of postmenopausal bleeding in women with endometrial thickness greater than 4 mm is 20%. This recurrence rate is not related to incorporation of hysteroscopy or polyp removal at the initial workup. II.

Purpose: To determine the accuracy of endometrial thickness measurement with transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) to diagnose endometrial polyps in women with postmenopausal bleeding in whom a carcinoma has been ruled out.Methods: In women with postmenopausal bleeding, endometrial thickness was measured with TVUS. If endometrial thickness was >4 mm, office hysteroscopy was performed. At hysteroscopy, the uterine cavity was assessed for the presence of polyps. Patients with malignancy were excluded. We used receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to assess the capacity of TVUS endometrial thickness measurement to diagnose endometrial polyps. Findings at hysteroscopy were considered to be the reference standard.Results: We included 178 patients with postmenopausal bleeding and endometrial thickness >4 mm. Hysteroscopy showed an endometrial polyp in 90 patients (50%). The ROC analysis revealed that endometrial thickness had an area under the curve of 0.64 in the diagnosis of endometrial polyps.Conclusion: In women with postmenopausal bleeding in whom carcinoma has been ruled out, measurement of endometrial thickness with TVUS is not useful in the diagnosis of endometrial polyps. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound, 2008

Objective  To assess patients’ preferences for diagnostic management of postmenopausal bleeding (PMB).Design  A structured interview.Setting  A teaching hospital with office hysteroscopy facilities.Population  Thirty‐nine women with PMB and with a completed work‐up including an office hysteroscopy.Methods  A structured interview was taken from 39 women who had had an office hysteroscopy in the diagnostic work‐up for PMB. Women were informed about the probability of endometrial carcinoma versus benign disease and about advantages and disadvantages of different diagnostic strategies, i.e. expectant management after ultrasound or complete diagnostic work‐up, including invasive procedures.Main outcome measures  Women were informed about the probability of endometrial carcinoma versus benign disease and about advantages and disadvantages of different diagnostic strategies, i.e., expectant management after ultrasound or complete diagnostic work‐up including invasive procedures. Women were asked to make a trade‐off between different options.Results  Most women wanted to be 100% certain that carcinoma could be ruled out. Only 5% of the women were willing to accept more than 5% risk of false reassurance. If the risk of recurrent bleeding due to benign disease exceeded 25%, the majority of women would prefer immediate diagnosis and treatment of benign lesions.Conclusion  Women with PMB are prepared to undergo hysteroscopy to rule out any risk on cancer. This finding implicates that the measurement of endometrial thickness with transvaginal ultrasound as a first‐line test in the assessment of PMB should be reconsidered.