Ferrari Federico, Forte Sara, Arrigoni Giulia, Ardighieri Laura, Coppola Maria Consuelo, Salinaro Federica, Barra Fabio, Sartori Enrico, Odicino Franco
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Transl Cancer Res. 2020 Dec;9(12):7697-7705. doi: 10.21037/tcr-20-2074.
Histotype and tumor grading of endometrial cancer are the most important factors that have to be assessed by preoperative endometrial sampling, and their concordance with the final surgical and definitive histological findings is of paramount importance. We aim to compare histotype and tumor grading concordance of various endometrial sampling techniques (ESTs) and to investigate the role of endometrial volume biopsy.
We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with apparent early stage endometrial cancer collecting demographic, clinical data, type of EST, pathological characteristics of endometrial biopsies and final specimens. We classified ESTs as dilation and curettage (D&C), diagnostic hysteroscopy with D&C, outpatient hysteroscopy and operative hysteroscopy with or without D&C. Diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy were performed with Bettocchi's 5 mm hysteroscope. We evaluated concordance for histotype, and tumor grading, and we performed subgroup analysis based on the technique and final tumor grading. Concordance was classified from good, moderate, sufficient, fair, poor and none using Cohen k-statistic. Finally, we investigated the existence of independent risk factors for discordant tumor grading using multivariate binary logistic regression.
We collected 148 patients and of these 131 (88.5%) were diagnosed with endometrioid histotype and 65 (44%), 46 (31%) and 37 (25%) respectively with well, moderate and poor differentiated tumors. Atypical hyperplasia (AH) was detected preoperatively in 28 patients (19%). Histotype concordance was fair (k=0.35) and tumor grading concordance was moderate (k=0.45); particularly, concordance was fair in well-differentiated cases (k=0.38); concordance was moderate in moderate- and poor-differentiated cases (k=0.52) and good (k=0.71). Operative hysteroscopy showed moderate concordance for histotype (k=0.41), while grading concordance was fair for G1 (k=0.41), moderate for G2 (k=0.58) and good for G3 (k=0.72), regardless the use of D&C. Preoperative volume biopsy did not impact the concordance of tumor grading, while the adoption of operative hysteroscopy (with or without D&C) decreased the risk of grading discordance in G3 tumors (HR 0.17; 95% CI: 0.03-0.94; P=0.04). Conversely, time elapsed from diagnosis to treatment in well-differentiated tumors increased the risk of discordant results (HR 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02-1.52; P=0.04).
Operative hysteroscopy demonstrated the best tumor grading concordance, especially in poor-differentiated tumors. The volume of biopsy did not affect the tumor grading concordance.
子宫内膜癌的组织学类型和肿瘤分级是术前子宫内膜取样必须评估的最重要因素,它们与最终手术及确定性组织学结果的一致性至关重要。我们旨在比较各种子宫内膜取样技术(ESTs)的组织学类型和肿瘤分级一致性,并研究子宫内膜体积活检的作用。
我们对明显早期子宫内膜癌患者进行了回顾性分析,收集人口统计学、临床数据、EST类型、子宫内膜活检和最终标本的病理特征。我们将ESTs分为刮宫术(D&C)、诊断性宫腔镜检查联合D&C、门诊宫腔镜检查以及有或无D&C的手术宫腔镜检查。诊断性和手术性宫腔镜检查均使用贝托基5毫米宫腔镜进行。我们评估了组织学类型和肿瘤分级的一致性,并根据技术和最终肿瘤分级进行了亚组分析。使用科恩k统计量将一致性分为良好、中等、充分、尚可、差和无。最后,我们使用多变量二元逻辑回归研究肿瘤分级不一致的独立危险因素的存在情况。
我们收集了148例患者,其中131例(88.5%)被诊断为子宫内膜样组织学类型,分别有65例(44%)、46例(31%)和37例(25%)为高分化、中分化和低分化肿瘤。术前在28例患者(19%)中检测到非典型增生(AH)。组织学类型一致性为尚可(k = 0.35),肿瘤分级一致性为中等(k = 0.45);特别是,高分化病例的一致性为尚可(k = 0.38);中分化和低分化病例的一致性为中等(k = 0.52),良好(k = 0.71)。手术宫腔镜检查显示组织学类型一致性为中等(k = 0.41),而G1级的分级一致性为尚可(k = 0.41),G2级为中等(k = 0.58),G3级为良好(k = 0.72),无论是否使用D&C。术前体积活检并未影响肿瘤分级的一致性,而采用手术宫腔镜检查(有或无D&C)降低了G3肿瘤分级不一致的风险(HR 0.17;95% CI:0.03 - 0.94;P = 0.04)。相反,高分化肿瘤从诊断到治疗的时间延长增加了结果不一致的风险(HR 1.06;95% CI:1.02 - 1.52;P = 0.04)。
手术宫腔镜检查显示出最佳的肿瘤分级一致性,尤其是在低分化肿瘤中。活检体积并未影响肿瘤分级一致性。