Kendall B S, Ronnett B M, Isacson C, Cho K R, Hedrick L, Diener-West M, Kurman R J
Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, USA.
Am J Surg Pathol. 1998 Aug;22(8):1012-9. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199808000-00012.
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.
许多研究试图确定有助于鉴别非典型增生(AH)与无异型性增生及高分化子宫内膜样癌的组织学特征,但很少有研究评估这些诊断的可重复性。五位病理学家独立审查了100份子宫内膜活检和刮宫标本,这些标本旨在代表子宫内膜增生性病变的整个谱系,包括增殖期子宫内膜(PEM)、无异型性增生、AH和高分化子宫内膜样癌。玻片经两次审查以进行诊断,期间对组织学特征清单进行评估。使用kappa统计量评估观察者内和观察者间的一致性。观察者内kappa值范围为0.67至0.89(一致性为76%至89%)。按诊断类别划分的观察者间kappa值为:增殖期子宫内膜:0.86;无异型性增生:0.60;AH:0.47;高分化子宫内膜样癌:0.83;所有病例合并后的kappa值为0.69。使用多元逻辑回归分析每位病理学家所选组织学特征与给定诊断之间的关联,以确定有助于区分诊断类别的特征。单变量和多变量分析确定的与区分诊断类别最相关的组织学特征为:增殖期子宫内膜与无异型性增生:腺体拥挤(单变量、多变量)和腺体分支(单变量);无异型性增生与AH:核仁的存在(单变量、多变量)、核增大(单变量)、核仁组成区嗜碱性改变(单变量)、核多形性(单变量)、染色质不规则(单变量)和极性丧失(单变量);无异型性增生与癌:腺体融合/复杂筛状模式(单变量、多变量)、间质改变(单变量、多变量)和坏死(单变量)。总之,观察者间一致性良好,但AH的一致性最低。只有核仁的存在与AH和无异型性增生的区分密切相关。个别病理学家使用其他特征来诊断异型性,但这些特征与该诊断并非始终相关。筛状结构模式和间质改变与高分化子宫内膜样癌和AH的区分相关。