Ho D M, Hsu C Y, Wong T T, Chiang H
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Neurological Institute, Veterans General Hospital-Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
J Neurooncol. 2001 Aug;54(1):77-85. doi: 10.1023/a:1012590505236.
Optimal histologic criteria for the classification of and grading of ependymomas, including their anaplastic forms, remain elusive. This is especially true because of the poor correlation of these criteria with clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to identify the histopathologic parameters that could distinguish different prognostic groups of patients with ependymomas. Eighty-one patients with ependymal tumors, including those originally diagnosed ependymomas, anaplastic ependymomas and myxopapillary ependymomas, were enrolled in this study. Thirteen histologic parameters, including hypercellularity, nuclear pleomorphism, mitoses, endothelial proliferation, necrosis, clear cell, thrombi, dystrophic calcification, psammoma bodies, bone, cartilage, Rosenthal fibers and MIB-1 labeling index (LI), were evaluated in each patient and correlated with clinical outcome. We assigned one score for each histopathologic parameter evaluated and used a stepwise selection method with entry model based on the significance of the log-rank statistic to formulate a scoring model. Four parameters were chosen in this process, including mitoses > or = 4/10 hpf (1.7/mm2), hypercellularity, endothelial proliferation and necrosis. The sum of these four parameters (scores) was the histopathologic score of the tumor. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with histopathologic scores 0 and 1 were significantly better than those with histopathologic scores 2, 3 and 4 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). Because of the latter finding, we proposed that anaplastic ependymoma could be diagnosed by the presence of any two of the aforementioned four parameters. Multivariate analyses including clinical and histopathologic variables showed that histopathologic score > or = 2 and subtotal resection were the factors related to increased risk of recurrence, while histopathologic score > or = 2 was the only factor related to overall survival. Based on the above findings, we concluded that histopathology is an important prognostic indicator for patients with ependymomas.
包括间变性室管膜瘤在内的室管膜瘤分类和分级的最佳组织学标准仍不明确。由于这些标准与临床结果的相关性较差,情况尤其如此。本研究的目的是确定能够区分不同预后组室管膜瘤患者的组织病理学参数。81例室管膜瘤患者纳入本研究,包括最初诊断为室管膜瘤、间变性室管膜瘤和黏液乳头型室管膜瘤的患者。对13个组织学参数进行评估,包括细胞增多、核异型性、有丝分裂、内皮细胞增殖、坏死、透明细胞、血栓、营养不良性钙化、砂粒体、骨、软骨、罗森塔尔纤维和MIB-1标记指数(LI),并将其与每位患者的临床结果相关联。我们为每个评估的组织病理学参数赋予一个分数,并使用基于对数秩统计显著性的逐步选择方法和进入模型来制定一个评分模型。在此过程中选择了4个参数,包括有丝分裂≥4/10高倍视野(1.7/mm2)、细胞增多、内皮细胞增殖和坏死。这4个参数(分数)的总和即为肿瘤的组织病理学评分。组织病理学评分为0和1的患者的无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)显著优于评分为2、3和4的患者(分别为p<0.001和p = 0.005)。基于后一发现,我们提出,存在上述4个参数中的任意2个即可诊断为间变性室管膜瘤。包括临床和组织病理学变量的多因素分析表明,组织病理学评分≥2和次全切除是与复发风险增加相关的因素,而组织病理学评分≥2是与总生存期相关的唯一因素。基于上述发现,我们得出结论,组织病理学是室管膜瘤患者的重要预后指标。