Literature DB >> 30810881

Endometrial hyperplasia and progression to cancer: which classification system stratifies the risk better? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Antonio Raffone1, Antonio Travaglino2, Gabriele Saccone1, Luigi Insabato3, Antonio Mollo1, Giuseppe De Placido1, Fulvio Zullo1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Benign and precancerous endometrial hyperplasias (EH) are differentiated thorough two possible histomorphologic classifications: WHO (adopting the subjective evaluation of cytologic atypia) and EIN (adopting several histomorphologic parameters, evaluable subjectively, or objectively with a computerized analysis calculating a prognostic score, the D score). ACOG recommends the use of EIN system although no distinction was made between objective assessment (not widely available), and subjective assessment (more applicable in the common practice). Moreover, it is still unclear if subjective EIN system is actually preferable to WHO classification. We aimed to assess the reliability of WHO system, D score and subjective EIN system in stratifying the risk of progression to cancer in EH.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Sciences, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, OVID, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles from the inception to August 2018. All studies assessing the rates of progression of EH to cancer were included.
RESULTS: Twelve cohort studies and one case-control study, assessing 3629 EH, were included. Relative risk (RR) for cancer progression was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI), and results were compared using Chi-square test (significant p value < 0.05). WHO system showed a RR of 8.74 (95% CI 6.66-11.47). Objective D score showed a RR of 29.22 (95% CI 13.24-64.51), significantly higher than WHO (p = 0.005). Subjective EIN system showed a RR of 19.37 (95% CI 5.86-64.01), intermediate between WHO and D score, without significant differences (p = 0.20 and p = 0.57, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Objective EIN criteria with D score are significantly more reliable than WHO criteria in stratifying the risk of progression of EH to cancer. Subjective EIN criteria did not show significant superiority over WHO instead. Further studies are necessary to determine if subjective EIN system should replace WHO system in the routine diagnosis of EH.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Concurrent cancer; Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia; Endometrial precancer; Endometroid adenocarcinoma; Prognosis; World Health Organization

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30810881     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05103-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.344


  6 in total

1.  Accuracy of One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification in Detecting Lymph Node Metastases in Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Antonio Raffone; Antonio Travaglino; Angela Santoro; Italia Esposito; Giuseppe Angelico; Saveria Spadola; Gian Franco Zannoni
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2019-08-23       Impact factor: 3.201

2.  TCGA Classification of Endometrial Cancer: the Place of Carcinosarcoma.

Authors:  Antonio Travaglino; Antonio Raffone; Annarita Gencarelli; Antonio Mollo; Maurizio Guida; Luigi Insabato; Angela Santoro; Gian Franco Zannoni; Fulvio Zullo
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 3.201

3.  Fertility-Sparing Treatment for Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia and Endometrial Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review Protocol.

Authors:  Maria-Eulalia Fernandez-Montoli; Jordi Sabadell; Nayanar-Adela Contreras-Perez
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 3.845

4.  ALDH1 expression predicts progression of premalignant lesions to cancer in Type I endometrial carcinomas.

Authors:  Vei Mah; Yahya Elshimali; Alison Chu; Neda A Moatamed; Jamar P Uzzell; Jessica Tsui; Stephen Schettler; Hania Shakeri; Madhuri Wadehra
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  Impact of endometrial carcinoma histotype on the prognostic value of the TCGA molecular subgroups.

Authors:  Antonio Travaglino; Antonio Raffone; Cristina Stradella; Rosanna Esposito; Paola Moretta; Cinzia Gallo; Giuliana Orlandi; Luigi Insabato; Fulvio Zullo
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.344

Review 6.  Hysteroscopy in the management of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in reproductive aged women: new developments and current perspectives.

Authors:  Salvatore Giovanni Vitale; Gaetano Riemma; Jose Carugno; Benito Chiofalo; George Angelos Vilos; Stefano Cianci; Mehmet Sukru Budak; Bernardo Portugal Lasmar; Antonio Raffone; Ilker Kahramanoglu
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.241

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.