Landolsi Hanène, Missaoui Nabiha, Yacoubi Mohamed Tahar, Trabelsi Amel, Rammeh-Rommani Soumaya, Hidar Samir, Gribaa Moez, Hmissa Sihem, Mokni Moncef
Department of Histopathology-Cytopathology, Division of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Farhat Hached University Hospital, Sousse, Republic of Tunisia.
Pathol Res Pract. 2009;205(11):789-96. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2009.05.013. Epub 2009 Aug 7.
This study retrospectively evaluated the histopathological criteria commonly used in the literature on the diagnosis of hydatidiform mole, in correlation with the diagnosis rendered previously. The molar and non-molar cases seen in the first-trimester of pregnancy were separately reviewed by two pathologists. The correlation between the consensual histological diagnosis and the ploidy status was then evaluated. We retrospectively studied 89 specimens of abortus conception, including 35 complete hydatidiform moles (CHM), 12 partial hydatidiform moles (PHM), and 42 hydropic abortions (HA). The final histopathological diagnosis was compared with the results of DNA content detected by imaging analyzer (Samba 200), studying all cases of molar pregnancy and 4 cases of HA (initially diagnosed as molar pregnancies). In the consensus histological diagnosis, the cases were reclassified as follows: 30 CHM (initial diagnosis (ID): 27 CHM and 3 PHM), 12 PHM (ID: 6 PHM and 6 CHM), and one case with a persistent problem in differentiating PHM from HA and 46 HA (ID: 42 HA, 2 CHM, and 2 PHM). An agreement between the two pathologists was reached in 77 cases (K=0.72, 0.52, and 0.9, respectively, for CHM, PHM, and HA). The ploidy study demonstrated diploidy in 56.6% (17/30) of CHM and triploidy in 58.3% (7/12) of PHM. In the 4 cases of HA studied, 3 were diploid and 1 case was aneuploid. Our study demonstrated that several histopathological criteria could be used for the distinction between PHM, CHM, and HA. However, the study of DNA cannot be the technique of choice to distinguish between these entities. Some cases remain problematic since the morphological criteria are not easily reproducible. New sensitive techniques might resolve these dilemmas.
本研究回顾性评估了文献中常用于诊断葡萄胎的组织病理学标准,并与先前做出的诊断进行了对比。两名病理学家分别对妊娠早期出现的葡萄胎和非葡萄胎病例进行了复查。随后评估了一致的组织学诊断与倍性状态之间的相关性。我们回顾性研究了89例流产标本,包括35例完全性葡萄胎(CHM)、12例部分性葡萄胎(PHM)和42例水肿性流产(HA)。将最终的组织病理学诊断与成像分析仪(Samba 200)检测的DNA含量结果进行比较,研究所有葡萄胎妊娠病例以及4例HA(最初诊断为葡萄胎妊娠)。在一致的组织学诊断中,病例重新分类如下:30例CHM(初始诊断(ID):27例CHM和3例PHM)、12例PHM(ID:6例PHM和6例CHM),1例在区分PHM和HA方面存在持续问题,以及46例HA(ID:42例HA、2例CHM和2例PHM)。两名病理学家在77例病例中达成了一致(CHM、PHM和HA的K值分别为0.72、0.52和0.9)。倍性研究显示,56.6%(17/30)的CHM为二倍体,58.3%(7/12)的PHM为三倍体。在所研究的4例HA中,3例为二倍体,1例为非整倍体。我们的研究表明,几种组织病理学标准可用于区分PHM、CHM和HA。然而,DNA研究并非区分这些实体的首选技术。由于形态学标准不易重现,一些病例仍然存在问题。新的敏感技术可能会解决这些难题。