0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Uterine Pathology in Women Undergoing Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy Using Morcellation FREE

Jason D. Wright, MD1; Ana I. Tergas, MD, MPH1; William M. Burke, MD1; Rosa R. Cui1; Cande V. Ananth, PhD, MPH1; Ling Chen, MD, MPH1; Dawn L. Hershman, MD, MS2
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
2Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
JAMA. 2014;312(12):1253-1255. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9005.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Even though minimally invasive surgery has improved outcomes for hysterectomy, the procedure requires removal of the uterus through small incisions. Morcellation, or fragmentation of the uterus into smaller pieces, is one method to remove the uterus. Recently, concern has been raised that morcellation may result in the spread of undetected malignancies.1

Despite the commercial availability of electric power morcellators for 2 decades, accurate estimates of the prevalence of malignancy at the time of electric power morcellation (herein referred to as morcellation) are lacking,1,2 with single-center studies reporting prevalences from 9 to 100 in 10 000.3,4 We used a large insurance database to investigate the prevalence of underlying cancer in women who underwent uterine morcellation.

The Perspective database was used to identify women who underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy from 2006-2012. Perspective is an all-payer database including more than 500 hospitals capturing 15% of hospitalizations. Hospitals within this database are more frequently urban teaching centers and located in the southern United States. Data undergo a rigorous quality control process. Use of commercially available morcellators was captured by identification of charge codes.5 The analysis was deemed exempt by the Columbia University institutional review board.

The primary outcome was identification of uterine corpus cancer (all histologies) based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, coding at surgery. We also examined the occurrence of uterine neoplasms of uncertain malignant potential; malignancies of other parts of the uterus, including cervical cancer, and surrounding adnexal structures (other gynecologic cancer); and endometrial hyperplasia.

Multivariable mixed-effects log-linear models, including clinical and demographic covariates and a random-intercept for the procedural hospital, were developed for uterine cancer and endometrial hyperplasia. The other outcomes were rare and the models did not converge.

All statistical analyses were 2-sided and performed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc). A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Within the cohort of 232 882 women who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy from 2006-2012, morcellation was performed in 36 470 (15.7%). Women who underwent morcellation differed in clinical and demographic characteristics from women who did not (eTable in the Supplement). Among those who underwent morcellation, 99 cases of uterine cancer were identified, a prevalence of 27/10 000 (95% CI, 22-32/10 000). Twenty-six cases of other gynecologic malignancies were found (a prevalence of 7/10 000 [95% CI, 4-10/10 000]), 39 uterine neoplasms of uncertain malignant potential (11/10 000 [95% CI, 7-14/10 000]), and 368 cases of endometrial hyperplasia (101/10 000 [95% CI, 91-111 per 10 000]).

Among women who underwent morcellation, advanced age was associated with underlying cancer and endometrial hyperplasia (Table). Compared with women younger than 40 years, the prevalence ratio for a uterine malignancy increased with increasing age from 4.97 (95% CI, 1.91-12.93) in women aged 50 to 54 years, to 19.37 (95% CI, 7.66-48.95) in those aged 55 to 59 years, to 21.36 (95% CI, 7.22-63.21) in those aged 60 to 64 years, and to 35.97 (95% CI, 14.14-91.53) for women aged 65 years or older.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Multivariable Models Among Women Who Underwent Morcellation

Our data demonstrate that uterine cancers occurred in 27 per 10 000 women undergoing morcellation. Other malignancies and precancerous abnormalities were also detected. Although morcellators have been in use since 1993, few studies have described the prevalence of unexpected pathology at the time of hysterectomy.24 Prevalence information is the first step in determining the risk of spreading cancer with morcellation. Although data are limited, women with apparent uterine-confined neoplasms at the time of morcellation have been found to have intraperitoneal tumor dissemination at the time of reexploration.3,6

We recognize a number of limitations including the inability to verify pathological findings, possible misclassification of pathology, potential undercapture of morcellation, and the fact that our findings may not be generalizable to all hospitals. Last, we lack data on long-term follow-up, and the outcome of women with pathological abnormalities who underwent morcellation requires further study. Patients considering morcellation should be adequately counseled about the prevalence of cancerous and precancerous conditions prior to undergoing the procedure.

Section Editor: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Senior Editor.

Corresponding Author: Jason D. Wright, MD, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 161 Fort Washington Ave, Eighth Floor, New York, NY 10032 (jw2459@columbia.edu).

Published Online: July 22, 2014. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9005.

Author Contributions: Dr Wright had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Wright, Tergas, Burke, Ananth, Chen, Hershman.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Wright, Cui, Ananth, Chen.

Drafting of the manuscript: Wright, Chen, Hershman.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Wright, Ananth, Chen.

Obtained funding: Wright.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Wright.

Study supervision: Wright, Burke, Hershman.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

Funding/Support: Dr Wright (grant R01CA169121-01A1) and Dr Hershman (grant R01CA134964) are recipients of grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr Tergas is the recipient of a fellowship (R25 CA094061-11) from the National Cancer Institute.

Role of the Sponsors: The National Cancer Institute had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

 Patient safety must be a priority in all aspects of care. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(2):123.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kho  KA, Nezhat  CH.  Evaluating the risks of electric uterine morcellation. JAMA. 2014;311(9):905-906.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Seidman  MA, Oduyebo  T, Muto  MG, Crum  CP, Nucci  MR, Quade  BJ.  Peritoneal dissemination complicating morcellation of uterine mesenchymal neoplasms. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e50058.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hagemann  IS, Hagemann  AR, LiVolsi  VA, Montone  KT, Chu  CS.  Risk of occult malignancy in morcellated hysterectomy: a case series. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2011;30(5):476-483.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wright  JD, Ananth  CV, Lewin  SN,  et al.  Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689-698.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Oduyebo  T, Rauh-Hain  AJ, Meserve  EE,  et al.  The value of re-exploration in patients with inadvertently morcellated uterine sarcoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(2):360-365.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Multivariable Models Among Women Who Underwent Morcellation

References

 Patient safety must be a priority in all aspects of care. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(2):123.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kho  KA, Nezhat  CH.  Evaluating the risks of electric uterine morcellation. JAMA. 2014;311(9):905-906.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Seidman  MA, Oduyebo  T, Muto  MG, Crum  CP, Nucci  MR, Quade  BJ.  Peritoneal dissemination complicating morcellation of uterine mesenchymal neoplasms. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e50058.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hagemann  IS, Hagemann  AR, LiVolsi  VA, Montone  KT, Chu  CS.  Risk of occult malignancy in morcellated hysterectomy: a case series. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2011;30(5):476-483.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wright  JD, Ananth  CV, Lewin  SN,  et al.  Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689-698.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Oduyebo  T, Rauh-Hain  AJ, Meserve  EE,  et al.  The value of re-exploration in patients with inadvertently morcellated uterine sarcoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(2):360-365.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Supplement.

eTable. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the cohort

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

20,774 Views
14 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Is This Woman Perimenopausal?

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Evaluation of Perimenopause

×