BACKGROUND: Histopathologic diagnosis of endometrial biopsies is used to estimate the risk of progression to carcinoma and guide clinical management. Problems with the widely used World Health Organization (WHO) system for classifying endometrial hyperplasia (EH) have prompted the development of an alternative system based on endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN). The authors estimated progression risk associated with EIN among endometrial biopsies in a nested case-control study of EH progression. METHODS: Index biopsies with original community pathology diagnoses of disordered proliferative endometrium (DPEM) or EH that were independently confirmed by a panel of pathologists were independently reviewed and assigned EIN classifications (inadequate, benign, EIN, or cancer) by a second panel of pathologists. Cases (N = 138) progressed to carcinoma at least 1 year (median, 6 years) after their index biopsy. Controls (N = 241) also had EH, did not progress to carcinoma, and were individually matched to cases based on age at EH, date of EH, and length of follow-up. By using conditional logistic regression, the authors estimated relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for progression to carcinoma for EIN versus benign. RESULTS: In the EIN system, 71 (52.6%) cases and 159 (66.8%) controls were classified as benign and 42 (31.1%) cases and 65 (27.3%) controls were classified as EIN. The RR for EIN versus benign was 7.76 (95% CI, 3.36-17.91). In the WHO system, the RR for atypical hyperplasia (AH) versus DPEM, simple hyperplasia, or complex hyperplasia was 9.19 (95% CI, 3.87-21.83). CONCLUSIONS: Among women observed for at least 1 year after receiving a biopsy-based EH diagnosis, EIN and AH were both found to have similarly increased risks of progression to carcinoma. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Histopathologic diagnosis of endometrial biopsies is used to estimate the risk of progression to carcinoma and guide clinical management. Problems with the widely used World Health Organization (WHO) system for classifying endometrial hyperplasia (EH) have prompted the development of an alternative system based on endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN). The authors estimated progression risk associated with EIN among endometrial biopsies in a nested case-control study of EH progression. METHODS: Index biopsies with original community pathology diagnoses of disordered proliferative endometrium (DPEM) or EH that were independently confirmed by a panel of pathologists were independently reviewed and assigned EIN classifications (inadequate, benign, EIN, or cancer) by a second panel of pathologists. Cases (N = 138) progressed to carcinoma at least 1 year (median, 6 years) after their index biopsy. Controls (N = 241) also had EH, did not progress to carcinoma, and were individually matched to cases based on age at EH, date of EH, and length of follow-up. By using conditional logistic regression, the authors estimated relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for progression to carcinoma for EIN versus benign. RESULTS: In the EIN system, 71 (52.6%) cases and 159 (66.8%) controls were classified as benign and 42 (31.1%) cases and 65 (27.3%) controls were classified as EIN. The RR for EIN versus benign was 7.76 (95% CI, 3.36-17.91). In the WHO system, the RR for atypical hyperplasia (AH) versus DPEM, simple hyperplasia, or complex hyperplasia was 9.19 (95% CI, 3.87-21.83). CONCLUSIONS: Among women observed for at least 1 year after receiving a biopsy-based EH diagnosis, EIN and AH were both found to have similarly increased risks of progression to carcinoma. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Edward H Wagner; Sarah M Greene; Gene Hart; Terry S Field; Suzanne Fletcher; Ann M Geiger; Lisa J Herrinton; Mark C Hornbrook; Christine C Johnson; Judy Mouchawar; Sharon J Rolnick; Victor J Stevens; Stephen H Taplin; Dennis Tolsma; Thomas M Vogt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2005
Authors: Jonathan L Hecht; Tan A Ince; Jan P A Baak; Heather E Baker; Maryann W Ogden; George L Mutter Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Jan P Baak; George L Mutter; Stanley Robboy; Paul J van Diest; Anne M Uyterlinde; Anne Orbo; Juan Palazzo; Bent Fiane; Kjell Løvslett; Curt Burger; Feja Voorhorst; René H Verheijen Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mark E Sherman; Brigitte M Ronnett; Olga B Ioffe; Douglas A Richesson; Brenda B Rush; Andrew G Glass; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Maire A Duggan; James V Lacey Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: George L Mutter; Richard J Zaino; Jan P A Baak; Rex C Bentley; Stanley J Robboy Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Kimberly H Allison; Kristen Upson; Susan D Reed; Carolyn D Jordan; Katherine M Newton; Jennifer Doherty; Elizabeth M Swisher; Rochelle L Garcia Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Susan D Reed; Katherine M Newton; Walter L Clinton; Meira Epplein; Rochelle Garcia; Kimberly Allison; Lynda F Voigt; Noel S Weiss Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Ashley S Felix; Joel L Weissfeld; Roslyn A Stone; Robert Bowser; Mamatha Chivukula; Robert P Edwards; Faina Linkov Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-07-14 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Cornelia L Trimble; Michael Method; Mario Leitao; Karen Lu; Olga Ioffe; Moss Hampton; Robert Higgins; Richard Zaino; George L Mutter Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Mark E Sherman; Will Howatt; Fiona M Blows; Paul Pharoah; Stephen M Hewitt; Montserrat Garcia-Closas Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-03-23 Impact factor: 4.254