PURPOSE: Endometrial carcinoma in the lower uterine segment (LUS) is a poorly described cancer that can be clinically confused with endocervical carcinoma. We performed a case-comparison study to document the clinicopathologic characteristics of LUS tumors and their association with risk factors for endometrial cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical records and pathology reports from women who underwent hysterectomy at our institution for endometrial or endocervical adenocarcinoma over an 11-year interval were reviewed. The LUS group consisted of women with endometrial tumors that clearly originated between the lower uterine corpus and the upper endocervix. Immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability and MLH1 methylation assays were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-five (3.5%) of 1,009 women had endometrial carcinoma of the LUS. Compared with patients with corpus tumors, LUS patients were younger, had higher stage tumors, and had more invasive tumors. Preoperative diagnosis of the LUS tumors more frequently included the possibility of endocervical adenocarcinoma. Seventy-three percent of the LUS tumors had an immunohistochemical expression pattern typical of conventional endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Ten (29%) of 35 women with LUS tumors were confirmed to have Lynch syndrome or were strongly suspected to have Lynch syndrome on the basis of tissue-based molecular assays. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of Lynch syndrome in patients with LUS endometrial carcinoma (29%) is much greater than that of the general endometrial cancer patient population (1.8%) or in endometrial cancer patients younger than age 50 years (8% to 9%). On the basis of our results, the possibility of Lynch syndrome should be considered in women with LUS tumors.
PURPOSE:Endometrial carcinoma in the lower uterine segment (LUS) is a poorly described cancer that can be clinically confused with endocervical carcinoma. We performed a case-comparison study to document the clinicopathologic characteristics of LUS tumors and their association with risk factors for endometrial cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical records and pathology reports from women who underwent hysterectomy at our institution for endometrial or endocervical adenocarcinoma over an 11-year interval were reviewed. The LUS group consisted of women with endometrial tumors that clearly originated between the lower uterine corpus and the upper endocervix. Immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability and MLH1 methylation assays were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-five (3.5%) of 1,009 women had endometrial carcinoma of the LUS. Compared with patients with corpus tumors, LUS patients were younger, had higher stage tumors, and had more invasive tumors. Preoperative diagnosis of the LUS tumors more frequently included the possibility of endocervical adenocarcinoma. Seventy-three percent of the LUS tumors had an immunohistochemical expression pattern typical of conventional endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Ten (29%) of 35 women with LUS tumors were confirmed to have Lynch syndrome or were strongly suspected to have Lynch syndrome on the basis of tissue-based molecular assays. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of Lynch syndrome in patients with LUS endometrial carcinoma (29%) is much greater than that of the general endometrial cancerpatient population (1.8%) or in endometrial cancerpatients younger than age 50 years (8% to 9%). On the basis of our results, the possibility of Lynch syndrome should be considered in women with LUS tumors.
Authors: Russell R Broaddus; Henry T Lynch; Lee-May Chen; Molly S Daniels; Peggy Conrad; Mark F Munsell; Kristin G White; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Karen H Lu Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: K Masuda; C Yutani; K Akutagawa; S Yamamoto; H Ishibashi-Ueda; M Imakita; M Takeda; A Kurata; T Hayashi; M Sasaki Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: Masoom A Haider; Michael Patlas; Kartik Jhaveri; William Chapman; Anthony Fyles; Barry Rosen Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: R C Boronow; C P Morrow; W T Creasman; P J Disaia; S G Silverberg; A Miller; J A Blessing Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 1984-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Nora T Kizer; Feng Gao; Saketh Guntupalli; Premal H Thaker; Matthew A Powell; Paul J Goodfellow; David G Mutch; Israel Zighelboim Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Stefano Uccella; Stephen S Cha; L Joseph Melton; Eric J Bergstralh; Lisa A Boardman; Gary L Keeney; Karl C Podratz; Fabio Francesco Ciancio; Andrea Mariani Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Amanda S Bruegl; Bojana Djordjevic; Brittany Batte; Molly Daniels; Bryan Fellman; Diana Urbauer; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Charlotte Sun; Karen H Lu; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2014-04-25
Authors: Amanda S Bruegl; Kari L Ring; Molly Daniels; Bryan M Fellman; Diana L Urbauer; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2016-12-13
Authors: Brittany A L Batte; Amanda S Bruegl; Molly S Daniels; Kari L Ring; Katherine M Dempsey; Bojana Djordjevic; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Bryan M Fellman; Karen H Lu; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Kari L Ring; Amanda S Bruegl; Brian A Allen; Eric P Elkin; Nanda Singh; Anne-Renee Hartman; Molly S Daniels; Russell R Broaddus Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 7.842