Literature DB >> 15725797

Description of a novel system for grading of endometrial carcinoma and comparison with existing grading systems.

Abdulmohsen Alkushi1, Zainab H Abdul-Rahman, Peter Lim, Michael Schulzer, Andrew Coldman, Steven E Kalloger, Dianne Miller, C Blake Gilks.   

Abstract

The most widely used system for grading of endometrial carcinoma is the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grading system. This grading system requires evaluation of histologic features that are difficult to assess reproducibly. Two hundred and two cases of endometrial carcinoma, treated by hysterectomy, were retrieved from the archives of Vancouver General Hospital (1983-1998). For each tumor, the architectural pattern, nuclear grade, and mitotic index were assessed. The tumor architectural pattern, nuclear grade, and mitotic index were significant predictors of patient outcome (P < 0.0001 for each, by univariate analysis). There were no prognostic differences between patients having predominantly solid versus papillary tumors, or tumors with mild versus moderate nuclear atypia. The tumors were then classified into high and low grade based on assessment of these three features. The presence of at least two criteria of these three: 1) predominantly papillary or solid growth pattern, 2) mitotic index > or =6/10 high power fields, or 3) severe nuclear atypia, resulted in a tumor being considered high grade. Low-grade tumors satisfied at most one of those criteria. The proposed grading system was found to be an independent predictor of patient outcome when patient survival was adjusted for FIGO stage, patient age, and tumor cell type. It also had more prognostic power than other grading systems tested when it was applied to all tumors, regardless of their cell type; however, the FIGO grading system was superior for prognostication when only carcinomas of endometrioid type were considered. With the FIGO grading system, no significant difference in survival was observed between patients with grade 1 and grade 2 tumors. Combining FIGO grades 1 and 2 results in a binary system (grades 1 and 2 vs. grade 3) that was the most prognostically significant grading system tested, with the additional advantages of being highly reproducible and familiar to practicing pathologists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15725797     DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000152129.81363.d2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  12 in total

Review 1.  My approach to the interpretation of endometrial biopsies and curettings.

Authors:  W G McCluggage
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 2.  Data set for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).

Authors:  W Glenn McCluggage; Meagan J Judge; Blaise A Clarke; Ben Davidson; C Blake Gilks; Harry Hollema; Jonathan A Ledermann; Xavier Matias-Guiu; Yoshiki Mikami; Colin J R Stewart; Russell Vang; Lynn Hirschowitz
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 7.842

3.  Controversies in surgical staging of endometrial cancer.

Authors:  R Seracchioli; S Solfrini; M Mabrouk; C Facchini; N Di Donato; L Manuzzi; L Savelli; S Venturoli
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2010-06-23

4.  Interobserver Variability in the Diagnosis of Uterine High-Grade Endometrioid Carcinoma.

Authors:  Sumi Thomas; Yaser Hussein; Sudeshna Bandyopadhyay; Michele Cote; Oudai Hassan; Eman Abdulfatah; Baraa Alosh; Hui Guan; Robert A Soslow; Rouba Ali-Fehmi
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 5.534

5.  Prognostic impact of histological review of high-grade endometrial carcinomas in a large Danish cohort.

Authors:  Marie Boennelycke; Elke E M Peters; Alicia Léon-Castillo; Vincent T H B M Smit; Tjalling Bosse; Ib Jarle Christensen; Gitte Ørtoft; Claus Høgdall; Estrid Høgdall
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 4.064

6.  Histopathological features of endometrial carcinomas associated with POLE mutations: implications for decisions about adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Salwa Bakhsh; Mary Kinloch; Lien N Hoang; Robert A Soslow; Martin Köbel; Cheng-Han Lee; Jessica N McAlpine; Melissa K McConechy; C Blake Gilks
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 7.  [Grading of gynecological tumors : Current aspects].

Authors:  L-C Horn; D Mayr; C E Brambs; J Einenkel; I Sändig; K Schierle
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.011

8.  Association between intratumoral lymphatic microvessel density (LMVD) and clinicopathologic features in endometrial cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Lecy Kawamura; Filomena M Carvalho; Bernardo G L Alves; Carlos E Bacchi; Joao Carlos Sampaio Goes; Marcelo Alvarenga Calil; Edmund C Baracat; Jesus P Carvalho
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 2.754

9.  Expression of Selected Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Transcription Factors in Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Paweł Sadłecki; Jakub Jóźwicki; Paulina Antosik; Małgorzata Walentowicz-Sadłecka
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Relationships of nuclear, architectural and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading systems in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Tayfun Toptaş; Elif Peştereli; Selen Bozkurt; Gülgün Erdoğan; Tayup Şimşek
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2017-10-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.