Literature DB >> 17892460

Reproducibility of grading systems for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma and their relation with pathologic prognostic parameters.

N Kapucuoglu1, D Bulbul, G Tulunay, M A Temel.   

Abstract

The FIGO grading for endometrial endometrioid carcinomas is widely accepted. In 2000, a novel binary architectural grading system was suggested that divided endometrioid carcinomas into low- and high-grade tumors. We aimed to evaluate the interobserver reproducibility of the FIGO, the architectural binary, and nuclear grading systems and the correlation between these grading systems and pathologic prognostic factors for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma. Eighty-eight endometrial endometrioid carcinomas from hysterectomy specimens were reevaluated by two pathologists independently. Kappa values for the FIGO, the binary, and the nuclear grading systems were 0.65, 0.67, and 0.09, respectively. The reproducibility of the FIGO and the binary grading systems was similar and substantial. FIGO grade 1 (60.2%) patients were comparable to binary low-grade (63.6%) patients. Most of the FIGO grade 3 (83%) patients were binary high grade. FIGO grade 2 patients were distributed between binary low and high grades. The FIGO grade 1 and 2 cases judged to be of binary high grade had deep myometrial invasion, and more cases had vascular invasion in comparison with FIGO grade 1 and 2 cases judged to be of binary low grade. In uni- and multivariate analyses, both grading systems, depth of myometrial invasion, vascular invasion, cervical involvement, and stage had no effect on overall survival. But binary high grade and vascular involvement are adverse prognostic factors on recurrence-free survival. Binary high-grade patients can be assigned as high-risk patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17892460     DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01067.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  6 in total

Review 1.  Molecular staging of gynecological cancer: What is the future?

Authors:  Pratibha S Binder; Jaime Prat; David G Mutch
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 5.237

Review 2.  Prognostic biomarkers in endometrial and ovarian carcinoma.

Authors:  Xavier Matias-Guiu; Ben Davidson
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 3.  The evolution of endometrial carcinoma classification through application of immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostics: past, present and future.

Authors:  Emily A Goebel; August Vidal; Xavier Matias-Guiu; C Blake Gilks
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Identification of histological features of endometrioid adenocarcinoma based on amide proton transfer-weighted imaging and multimodel diffusion-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Fangfang Fu; Nan Meng; Zhun Huang; Jing Sun; Xuejia Wang; Jie Shang; Ting Fang; Pengyang Feng; Kaiyu Wang; Dongming Han; Meiyun Wang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-02

5.  Myoferlin Expression and Its Correlation with FIGO Histologic Grading in Early-Stage Endometrioid Carcinoma.

Authors:  Min Hye Kim; Dae Hyun Song; Gyung Hyuck Ko; Jeong Hee Lee; Dong Chul Kim; Jung Wook Yang; Hyang Im Lee; Hyo Jung An; Jong Sil Lee
Journal:  J Pathol Transl Med       Date:  2018-03-14

6.  A Modern Approach to Endometrial Carcinoma: Will Molecular Classification Improve Precision Medicine in the Future?

Authors:  Simone Marnitz; Till Walter; Birgid Schömig-Markiefka; Tobias Engler; Stefan Kommoss; Sara Yvonne Brucker
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 6.639

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.