Literature DB >> 9706982

Reproducibility of the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and well-differentiated carcinoma.

B S Kendall1, B M Ronnett, C Isacson, K R Cho, L Hedrick, M Diener-West, R J Kurman.   

Abstract

Many studies have attempted to identify histologic features that aid in the distinction of atypical hyperplasia (AH) from hyperplasia without atypia and well-differentiated endometrioid carcinoma, but few have evaluated the reproducibility of these diagnoses. Five pathologists independently reviewed 100 endometrial biopsy and curettage specimens chosen to represent the entire spectrum of proliferative lesions of the endometrium, including proliferative endometrium (PEM), hyperplasia without atypia, AH, and well-differentiated endometrioid carcinoma. Slides were reviewed twice for diagnosis, with an intervening evaluation of a checklist of histologic features. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement were assessed using the kappa statistic. Intraobserver kappa values ranged from 0.67 to 0.89 (76% to 89% agreement). Interobserver kappa values by diagnostic category were: proliferative endometrium: 0.86; hyperplasia without atypia: 0.60; AH: 0.47; well-differentiated endometrioid carcinoma: 0.83; with a kappa value of 0.69 for all cases combined. Associations between the selected histologic features and the given diagnoses for each pathologist were analyzed using multiple logistic regressions to identify features that were useful for distinguishing among diagnostic categories. Histologic features determined by univariable and multivariable analyses that were found to be most associated with distinguishing diagnostic categories were: proliferative endometrium versus hyperplasia without atypia: gland crowding (univariable, multivariable), and gland branching (univariable); hyperplasia without atypia versus AH: presence of nucleoli (univariable, multivariable), nuclear enlargement (univariable), vesicular chromatin change (univariable), nuclear pleomorphism (univariable), chromatin irregularities (univariable), and loss of polarity (univariable); hyperplasia without atypia versus carcinoma: glandular confluence/complex cribriform pattern (univariable, multivariable), stromal alteration (univariable, multivariable), and necrosis (univariable). In summary, interobserver agreement was good but was lowest for AH. Only the presence of nucleoli was strongly associated with distinction of AH from hyperplasia without atypia. Individual pathologists use additional features to diagnose atypia, but these features are not consistently associated with that diagnosis. Cribriform architectural pattern and stromal alteration were associated with the distinction of well-differentiated endometrioid carcinoma from AH.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9706982     DOI: 10.1097/00000478-199808000-00012

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


  31 in total

Review 1.  The significance of quality of life in health care.

Authors:  Robert M Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Biomarkers of progestin therapy resistance and endometrial hyperplasia progression.

Authors:  Kristen Upson; Kimberly H Allison; Susan D Reed; Carolyn D Jordan; Katherine M Newton; Elizabeth M Swisher; Jennifer A Doherty; Rochelle L Garcia
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 3.  EIN and WHO94.

Authors:  J P A Baak; G L Mutter
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Histologic diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia.

Authors:  Jaime Prat
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2002-08-10       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  PAX2 loss by immunohistochemistry occurs early and often in endometrial hyperplasia.

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

6.  Incidence of endometrial hyperplasia.

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

Review 7.  My approach to the interpretation of endometrial biopsies and curettings.

Authors:  W G McCluggage
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Clinically significant endometrial cancer risk following a diagnosis of complex atypical hyperplasia.

Authors:  Anthony B Costales; Kathleen M Schmeler; Russell Broaddus; Pamela T Soliman; Shannon N Westin; Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-10-12       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 9.  Management of endometrial precancers.

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

10.  Diagnosing endometrial hyperplasia: why is it so difficult to agree?

Authors:  Kimberly H Allison; Susan D Reed; Lynda F Voigt; Carolyn D Jordan; Kathryn M Newton; Rochelle L Garcia
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 6.394

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.