Utility of Pipet Curet Cytology and Biopsy as a Diagnostic Method for Endometrial Endometrioid Carcinoma

Introduction: We aimed to determine the utility of Pipet Curet cytology (PCC) and Pipet Curet biopsy (PCB) for diagnosing uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC). Methods: We divided 77 patients with EEC into two groups per Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grades: G1 (n = 44) and G2/3 (n = 33) and compared the diagnostic sensitivity of PCC, PCB, and PCC and PCB combined, retrospectively. Next, we investigated any diagnostic discordance between PCC-based and PCB-based diagnoses per FIGO grade group. Results: The diagnostic sensitivity of PCC, PCB, and the two modalities combined was significantly higher for G2/3 EECs than for G1 EECs (72.7% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.0209; 84.8% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.0434; and 93.9% vs. 65.9%, p = 0.0046, respectively), likely due to more friable cancer cells in higher grade EEC cases. Among our 77 EEC patients, there were 4 patients (5.19%) with PCC-based concordant but PCB-based discordant results against EEC, in the G2/3 group predominantly. Diagnostic sensitivity of all cases increased from 72.7% (56/77) by PCB alone to 77.9% (60/77) by use of both modalities combined. Conclusion: Cytologic evaluation can reduce the number of false-negative histologic diagnoses. By providing complementary information, the two modalities combined from the Pipet Curet procedure would be valuable as a diagnostic method for EEC.