↓ Skip to main content

New concepts for an old problem: the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia

Overview of attention for article published in Human Reproduction Update, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
232 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
310 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
New concepts for an old problem: the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia
Published in
Human Reproduction Update, December 2016
DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmw042
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter A. Sanderson, Hilary O.D. Critchley, Alistair R.W. Williams, Mark J. Arends, Philippa T.K. Saunders

Abstract

Endometrial hyperplasia (EH) is a uterine pathology representing a spectrum of morphological endometrial alterations. It is predominantly characterized by an increase in the endometrial gland-to-stroma ratio when compared to normal proliferative endometrium. The clinical significance of EH lies in the associated risk of progression to endometrioid endometrial cancer (EC) and 'atypical' forms of EH are regarded as premalignant lesions. Traditional histopathological classification systems for EH exhibit wide and varying degrees of diagnostic reproducibility and, as a consequence, standardized patient management can be challenging. EC is the most common gynaecological malignancy in developed countries. The incidence of EC is rising, with alarming increases described in the 40-44-year-old age group. This review appraises the current EH classification systems used to stratify women at risk of malignant progression to EC. In addition, we summarize the evidence base regarding the use of immunohistochemical biomarkers for EH and discuss an emerging role for genomic analysis. PubMed, Medline and the Cochrane Database were searched for original peer-reviewed primary and review articles, from January 2000 to January 2016. The following search terms were used: 'endometrial hyperplasia', 'endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia', 'atypical hyperplasia', 'complex atypical hyperplasia', 'biomarker', 'immunohistochemistry', 'progression', 'genomic', 'classification' and 'stratification'. Recent changes to EH classification reflect our current understanding of the genesis of endometrioid ECs. The concept of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) as a mutationally activated, monoclonal pre-malignancy represents a fundamental shift from the previously held notion that unopposed oestrogenic stimulation causes ever-increasing hyperplastic proliferation, with accumulating cytological atypia that imperceptibly leads to the development of endometrioid EC. Our review highlights several key biomarker candidates that have been described as both diagnostic tools for EH and markers of progression to EC. We propose that, moving forwards, a 'panel' approach of combinations of the immunohistochemical biomarkers described in this review may be more informative since no single candidate can currently fill the entire role. EC has historically been considered a predominantly postmenopausal disease. Owing in part to the current unprecedented rates of obesity, we are starting to see signs of a shift towards a rising incidence of EC amongst pre- and peri-menopausal woman. This creates unique challenges both diagnostically and therapeutically. Furthering our understanding of the premalignant stages of EC development will allow us to pursue earlier diagnosis and facilitate appropriate stratification of women at risk of developing EC, permitting timely and appropriate therapeutic interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 310 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 310 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 54 17%
Student > Master 27 9%
Other 24 8%
Researcher 23 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 7%
Other 50 16%
Unknown 110 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 133 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 2%
Unspecified 4 1%
Other 25 8%
Unknown 113 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,753,042
of 25,117,541 outputs
Outputs from Human Reproduction Update
#162
of 1,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,633
of 428,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Reproduction Update
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,117,541 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,165 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.