Article Text
Abstract
Objective To assess the risk of endometrial carcinoma following a diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia by endometrial biopsy, stratified based on integrated histological parameters.
Methods All women with atypical hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia undergoing hysterectomy within 1 year of diagnosis without progestin treatment were included. Patients were subdivided into three study groups, based on two criteria: (a) grade of nuclear atypia and (b) foci (<2 mm) of confluent glands with no intervening stroma: low-grade, high-grade, and confluent glands. The rate of endometrial carcinoma on the subsequent hysterectomy was assessed in each study group, and differences between study groups were assessed using Fisher’s exact test, with a significant p value <0.05. Reproducibility was assessed by using Cohen’s κ.
Results Ninety-six patients were included. Overall, 36 of 96 patients (37.5%) had endometrial carcinoma on the subsequent hysterectomy. The number of endometrial carcinomas was 4 of 42 (9.5%) in the low-grade group, 14 of 28 (50.0%) in the high-grade group, and 18 of 26 (69.2%) in the confluent glands group. The rate of endometrial carcinoma was significantly higher in the high-grade group than in the low-grade group (p<0.001), whereas it did not significantly differ between the high-grade group and the confluent glands group (p=0.176). The reproducibility among pathologists was moderate for low-grade versus high-grade (κ=0.58) and substantial for confluent glands versus low-grade (κ=0.63) and high-grade (κ=0.63).
Conclusion Atypical hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia can be stratified into prognostically relevant groups based on integrated histological parameters, with a possible major impact on patient management.
- Uterine Cancer
- Endometrial Hyperplasia
- Pathology
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Footnotes
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was first published, Author affiliation 4 has been corrected.
Contributors The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: AR, LI, DR, RS, MG, AT, GFZ; data collection: IDP, ML, PC, DN, DA; analysis and interpretation of results: AT, AT, AS, PC; draft manuscript preparation: AR, LI, DR, DN, DA, AS, RS, MG, AT, GFZ. Guarantor: LI. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.