Appendiceal Endometriosis: Is Diagnosis Dependent on Pathology Evaluation? A Prospective Cohort Study

Whitney Trotter Ross, Jordan M. Newell, Newell JM, Zaino R, Richard Zaino, Richard J. Zaino, Allen R. Kunselman, Harkins GJ, Gerald J Harkins, Gerald Harkins, Benton AS, Andrea S Benton, Andrea Benton
Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2020 · vol. 27(7) , pp. 1531–1537 · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2020.01.009 · PMID:31981715 · W3001925771
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 14 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-09 ⓘ

This prospective cohort study investigated whether appendiceal endometriosis diagnosis relies solely on pathological evaluation.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Study objectiveTo evaluate the diagnosis of appendiceal endometriosis (AppE) in coincidental appendectomy specimens using standard versus modified histopathologic analysis.DesignProspective analysis of 300 consecutive patients undergoing coincidental appendectomy at the time of a primary gynecologic procedure.SettingAcademic tertiary referral hospital in the northeastern United States.PatientsWomen aged 22 to 52 years undergoing gynecologic surgery for the management of endometriosis or chronic pelvic pain between 2013 and 2015.InterventionsEach appendix specimen underwent standard pathologic analysis with 4 sections performed. Modified pathologic analysis, consisting of standard analysis plus serial sectioning and complete evaluation of the appendix and mesoappendix, was then performed. The first pathologist reviewed all the slides to render a diagnosis. The slides of the subjects with abnormal pathology were rereviewed. On rereview, the diagnosis was confirmed, and the data on which protocol, standard or modified, achieved the diagnosis was rendered. The pathologist performing the second review was blinded to whether the slides from the standard or modified histopathology protocol achieved the original diagnosis. This allowed each specimen to serve as its own control.Measurements and main resultsThe primary outcome is the detection of AppE. The standard analysis identified endometriosis in 7.7% (n = 23) of appendiceal specimens, whereas the modified analysis identified endometriosis in 10.0% (n = 30; odds ratio 1.3; confidence interval, 1.1-1.7; p = .01). When all pathology findings were combined, the standard analysis identified abnormal pathology in 9.3% (n = 28) of the specimens, whereas the modified analysis identified abnormal pathology in 12.3% (n = 37; odds ratio 1.4; confidence interval, 1.1-1.7; p <.01). Other abnormal appendiceal pathology identified in this study included polyps, neuroendocrine tumors, and acute appendicitis. The average number of slides required for the standard analysis was 1.4 compared with 4.9 slides for the modified analysis. At this institution, the average increase in the cost of slide production for the modified protocol was $12.07.ConclusionModified pathologic analysis resulted in a significantly higher rate of diagnosis of endometriosis and abnormal pathology in coincidental appendectomy performed during a primary gynecologic procedure for endometriosis and/or chronic pelvic pain. The use of a standard pathologic protocol likely contributes to underdiagnosis of AppE. The implementation of a modified histopathologic protocol should be considered for improving diagnosis rates of appendiceal pathology in coincidental appendectomy specimens.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosischronic_pelvic_pain

MeSH descriptors

Appendicitis Appendix Endometriosis Acute Disease Adult Appendectomy Appendectomy Appendicitis Appendicitis Appendicitis Appendicitis Appendix Appendix Chronic Pain Chronic Pain Chronic Pain Chronic Pain Chronic Pain Endometriosis Endometriosis

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (14)

Cited by (14)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-30T06:25:42.655704+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:22:17.025735+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK