Literature DB >> 21164295

Histologic artifacts in abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic hysterectomy specimens: a blinded, retrospective review.

Adriana Krizova1, Blaise A Clarke, Marcus Q Bernardini, Sarah James, Steve E Kalloger, Scott L Boerner, Anna Marie Mulligan.   

Abstract

Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) is a minimally invasive technique, which results in comparable morbidity and better cosmesis compared with total abdominal hysterectomy. The literature is discrepant as to whether it is associated with a higher incidence of positive peritoneal cytology compared with total abdominal hysterectomy and recently, associated artifacts, including vascular pseudoinvasion (VPI), have been described. A retrospective histopathologic review of 266 hysterectomy specimens from 2 centers was performed. The observers, blinded to the surgical technique, assessed for the presence of artifactual changes including disruption of the endometrial lining, nuclear crush artifact, VPI, endomyometrial cleft artifact with or without epithelial displacement, inflammatory debris within vessels, serosal carryover, and intratubal contaminants. In addition, the rates of positive peritoneal washings over a 5-year period, and the use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) to aid in cell typing over a 3-year period, were compared between hysterectomies in which a uterine manipulator (UM) device had and had not (nonmanipulated hysterectomies) been used. The hysterectomies were performed for malignant (n=160) and benign (n=102) uterine disease or for ovarian or cervical disease (n=4), and included total abdominal (n=108), vaginal (n=17), laparoscopy-assisted vaginal (n=24), laparoscopy converted to laparotomy (n=10), nonrobotic laparoscopic (n=51), and robot-assisted laparoscopic (n=56) hysterectomies. One hundred and two (38%) of these hysterectomies involved the use of a UM. Artifactual changes of disruption of the endometrial lining, endomyometrial clefts, intratubal contaminants, nuclear crush artifact, intravascular inflammatory debris, and VPI were significantly more common with LH and with the use of a UM, independent of whether the endometrial pathology was benign or malignant. IHC to aid in endometrial cancer subtyping was more likely to be used in manipulated hysterectomies (P=0.0166). Furthermore, peritoneal washings were significantly more likely to be positive in hysterectomies in which a UM had been used (P=0.0061). Histologic artifacts are significantly more common in LH and specifically in hysterectomies in which a UM is used. Such artifacts impair the pathologists' interpretation of cell type requiring an increased use of IHC, and displaced epithelial fragments present within vessels or artifactual clefts may result in the misinterpretation of prognostic and staging parameters. Furthermore, there is a significantly higher rate of positive peritoneal cytology in cases that are subjected to uterine manipulation, suggesting dissemination of malignant cells into the abdominal cavity. The clinical significance of this finding needs to be determined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21164295     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31820273dc

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Practical issues related to uterine pathology: staging, frozen section, artifacts, and Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Robert A Soslow
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 7.842

2.  Associations Between Intraluminal Tumor Cell Involvement in Serially Examined Fallopian Tubes and Endometrial Carcinoma Characteristics and Outcomes.

Authors:  Monica Rodriquez; Ashley S Felix; Mary Anne Brett; Goli Samimi; Máire A Duggan
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 3.326

3.  Lymphovascular space invasion in robotic surgery for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Mark R Hopkins; Abby M Richmond; Georgina Cheng; Susan Davidson; Monique A Spillman; Jeanelle Sheeder; Miriam D Post; Saketh R Guntupalli
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  Intraperitoneal cytology after laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Tomohito Tanaka; Yoshito Terai; Kazuya Maeda; Keisuke Ashihara; Yuhei Kogata; Hiroshi Maruoka; Shinichi Terada; Takashi Yamada; Masahide Ohmichi
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.889

5.  Pseudovascular Invasion: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Farinaz Seifi; Vinita Parkash; Mitchell Clark; Gulden Menderes; Christina Tierney; Dan-Arin Silasi; Masoud Azodi
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2019 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 6.  Robotic surgery for gynecologic cancers: indications, techniques and controversies.

Authors:  Kiran H Clair; Krishnansu S Tewari
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 1.730

7.  Confocal laser endomicroscopy for diagnosis and histomorphologic imaging of brain tumors in vivo.

Authors:  Sebastian Foersch; Axel Heimann; Ali Ayyad; Gilles A Spoden; Luise Florin; Konstantin Mpoukouvalas; Ralf Kiesslich; Oliver Kempski; Martin Goetz; Patra Charalampaki
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Unexpected result of minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Kanao; Yoichi Aoki; Nobuhiro Takeshima
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 4.401

9.  Risk of spilling cancer cells during total laparoscopic hysterectomy in low-risk endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Satoshi Shinohara; Ikuko Sakamoto; Masahiro Numata; Atsushi Ikegami; Katsuhiro Teramoto
Journal:  Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther       Date:  2016-12-31

10.  Survival Outcomes in Patients With 2018 FIGO Stage IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated With Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighting Analysis.

Authors:  Wancheng Zhao; Yunyun Xiao; Wei Zhao; Qing Yang; Fangfang Bi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.