Correlation between endometrial dating of luteal phase days 6 and 10 of the same menstrual cycle
Keywords:
Endometrium anatomy and histology, Luteal phase, Female infertilityAbstract
CONTEXT: Endometrial maturation, important in the diagnosis of infertile couples, has been evaluated since 1950 using the Noyes criteria. Nevertheless, there is no consensus regarding the most suitable period of the luteal phase for performing the biopsy. OBJETIVE: This study evaluated the correlation between the histological dating of two endometrial biopsies performed in the same menstrual cycle, on luteal phase days six and ten. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Human Reproduction Division of the Federal University of São Paulo, referral center. PATIENTS:Twenty-five women complaining of infertility had their menstrual cycles monitored by ultrasound and LH plasma levels, to obtain evidence of ovulation. PROCEDURES: Endometrial biopsies were performed on luteal phase days LH+6 and LH+10 (luteal phase day 1 = LH+1 = the day that follows LH peak). Dating was done according to morphometric criteria, in which an endometrium sample is considered out of phase if the minimum maturation delay is one day. On day LH+6, blood was drawn for plasma progesterone level determination. RESULTS: All patients had an ovulatory cycle (mean LH peak: 47.4 U/L; mean follicular diameter on LH peak day: 18.9 mm; mean endometrial thickness on LH peak day: 10.3 mm; mean plasma progesterone level on day LH+6: 14.4 ng/ml). 14 patients had both biopsies in phase; 5 patients had out of phase biopsies only on day LH+6; 3 had out of phase biopsies only on day LH+10 and 3 patients had out of phase biopsies on both days. McNemar's test showed no statistical difference between these data (p>33.36%). CONCLUSIONS: The correlation found between the endometrial datings suggests that biopsies performed on either of these two days are suitable for evaluation of endometrial maturation.
Downloads
References
Jones GES. Some newer aspects of the management of infertility. JAMA 1949;141(16):1123-9.
Noyes RW, Hertig AT, Rock J. Dating the Endometrial Biopsy. Fertil Steril 1950;1(1):3-25.
Li TC, Rogers AW, Lenton EA, Dockery P, Cooke I. A comparison between two methods of chronological dating of human endometrial biopsies during the luteal phase, and their correlation with histologic dating. Fertil Steril 1987;48(6):928-32.
Tsibris JCM, Cazenave CR, Cantor B, Notelovitz M, Kalra PS, Spellacy WN. Distribution of cytoplasmatic estrogen and progesterone receptors in human endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978;132(4):449-54.
Scott RT, Snyder RR, Strickland DM, et al. The effect of interobserver variation in dating endometrial histology on the diagnosis of luteal phase defects. Fertil Steril 1988;50(6):888-92.
Castelbaum AJ, Wheeler J, Coutifaris CB, Mastroianni Jr L, Lessey BA. Timing of the endometrial biopsy may be critical for the accurate diagnosis of luteal phase deficiency. Fertil Steril 1994;61(3):443-7.
Ritchie WGM. Sonographic evaluation of normal and induced ovulation. Radiology 1986;161:1-10.
Forrest TS, Elyaderani MK, Muilenburg MI, Bewtra C, Kable WT, Sullivan P. Cyclic endometrial changes: US assessment with histologic correlation. Radiology 1988;167:233-7.
Li TC, Rogers AW, Dockery P, Lenton EA, Cooke ID. A new method of histologic dating of human endometrium in the luteal phase. Fertil Steril 1988;50(1):52-60.
Mori H. New aspects of the physiology and pathology of the luteal phase: an overview. Horm Res 1992; 37(1): 3-4.
Randall JM, Templeton A. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of follicular and endometrial growth in spontaneous and clomiphene citrate cycles. Fertil Steril 1991;56(2):208-12.
Fleisher AC, Kepple DM, Herbert CM, Hill GA. Transvaginal sonography in gynecologic infertility. In Fleisher AC, editors. Diagnostic Imaging in Infertility. Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins; 1992:242-68.
Tredway DR, Mishell DR, Moyer DL. Correlation of endometrial dating with luteinizing hormone peak. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973;117(8):1030-3.
Li TC, Cooke ID. Outpatient endometrial biopsy: clinical, endocrinologic and histologic consequences. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1990;31:35-41.
