T P Batista1, C L C Cavalcanti2, A A G Tejo2, A L R Bezerra3. 1. HCP - Hospital de Câncer de Pernambuco, Avenida Cruz Cabugá, 1597, CEP: 50040-000, Recife, PE, Brazil(c); FPS/IMIP - Faculdade Pernambucana de Saúde, Instituto de Medicina Integral Professor Fernando Figueira, Rua dos Coelhos, 300 - Boa Vista, CEP: 50070-550, Recife, PE, Brazil(d). Electronic address: t.paulo@bol.com.br. 2. FPS/IMIP - Faculdade Pernambucana de Saúde, Instituto de Medicina Integral Professor Fernando Figueira, Rua dos Coelhos, 300 - Boa Vista, CEP: 50070-550, Recife, PE, Brazil(d). 3. HCP - Hospital de Câncer de Pernambuco, Avenida Cruz Cabugá, 1597, CEP: 50040-000, Recife, PE, Brazil(c); FPS/IMIP - Faculdade Pernambucana de Saúde, Instituto de Medicina Integral Professor Fernando Figueira, Rua dos Coelhos, 300 - Boa Vista, CEP: 50070-550, Recife, PE, Brazil(d).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis for predicting the final pathology grading in endometrial cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out on patients who underwent surgical treatment for clinically early-stage endometrioid carcinoma of uterus at our Centers from March, 1991 to June, 2012. The agreement levels for the histological grading between the preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis and the final surgical pathology were analyzed by the Kappa (κ) statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The statistical analyses were also based on frequency data and diagnostic agreement of the procedures. RESULTS: We retrospectively selected 79 patients that fit the criteria of this analysis. The overall level of agreement between preoperative and postoperative grading was "fair" according to Kappa (κ) statistics (κ = 0.221; 95%CI = 0.389-0.053; p = 0.01). Accordingly, the overall concordance was 48/79 (60.75%)-39/58 (67.24%) for G1, 7/16 (43.75%) for G2, and 2/5 (40%) for G3 tumors. The preoperative grade 1 diagnosis was upgraded to grade 2 (n = 6) or 3 (n = 1) in 15.2% of patients after hysterectomy. Sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis to predict grade 1 at the final surgical pathology was 67.2%, 66.7%, 42.4%, 84.8% and 67.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative endometrial sampling was found to be only a modest overall predictor of postoperative histological grading. A selective staging policy based on predictive models to avoid lymph node dissections in endometrial cancer should take into account additional parameters.
PURPOSE: To explore the accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis for predicting the final pathology grading in endometrial cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out on patients who underwent surgical treatment for clinically early-stage endometrioid carcinoma of uterus at our Centers from March, 1991 to June, 2012. The agreement levels for the histological grading between the preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis and the final surgical pathology were analyzed by the Kappa (κ) statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The statistical analyses were also based on frequency data and diagnostic agreement of the procedures. RESULTS: We retrospectively selected 79 patients that fit the criteria of this analysis. The overall level of agreement between preoperative and postoperative grading was "fair" according to Kappa (κ) statistics (κ = 0.221; 95%CI = 0.389-0.053; p = 0.01). Accordingly, the overall concordance was 48/79 (60.75%)-39/58 (67.24%) for G1, 7/16 (43.75%) for G2, and 2/5 (40%) for G3 tumors. The preoperative grade 1 diagnosis was upgraded to grade 2 (n = 6) or 3 (n = 1) in 15.2% of patients after hysterectomy. Sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis to predict grade 1 at the final surgical pathology was 67.2%, 66.7%, 42.4%, 84.8% and 67.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative endometrial sampling was found to be only a modest overall predictor of postoperative histological grading. A selective staging policy based on predictive models to avoid lymph node dissections in endometrial cancer should take into account additional parameters.
Authors: N M de Lange; N P M Ezendam; J S Kwon; I Vandenput; D Mirchandani; F Amant; L J M van der Putten; J M A Pijnenborg Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Aline Talhouk; Lien N Hoang; Melissa K McConechy; Quentin Nakonechny; Joyce Leo; Angela Cheng; Samuel Leung; Winnie Yang; Amy Lum; Martin Köbel; Cheng-Han Lee; Robert A Soslow; David G Huntsman; C Blake Gilks; Jessica N McAlpine Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Zuzana Danková; Dušan Braný; Dana Dvorská; Marcela Ňachajová; Roman Fiolka; Marián Grendár; Jozef Hatok; Peter Kubatka; Veronika Holubeková; Erika Halašová; Tibor Bielik; Pavol Žúbor Journal: Int J Mol Med Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 4.101
Authors: A Santoro; A Piermattei; F Inzani; G Angelico; M Valente; D Arciuolo; S Spadola; M Martini; F Fanfani; A Fagotti; V Gallotta; G Scambia; G F Zannoni Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 4.430