Description of a novel system for grading of endometrial carcinoma and comparison with existing grading systems

被引:80
作者
Alkushi, A
Abdul-Rahman, ZH
Lim, P
Schulzer, M
Coldman, A
Kalloger, SE
Miller, D
Gilks, CB
机构
[1] Vancouver Gen Hosp, Dept Pathol, British Columbia Canc Agcy, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[2] Vancouver Gen Hosp, Prostate Ctr, British Columbia Canc Agcy, Genet Pathol Evaluat Ctr, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[3] Univ British Columbia, Dept Med, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[4] British Columbia Canc Agcy, Dept Radiat Oncol, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E6, Canada
[5] Univ British Columbia, Dept Stat, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E6, Canada
[6] British Columbia Canc Agcy, Dept Gynecol Oncol, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E6, Canada
[7] British Columbia Canc Agcy, Gynecol Tumor Grp, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E6, Canada
关键词
endometrial carcinoma; grade; mitotic index;
D O I
10.1097/01.pas.0000152129.81363.d2
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
The most widely used system for grading of endometrial carcinoma is the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grading system. This grading system requires evaluation of histologic features that are difficult to assess reproducibly. Two hundred and two cases of endometrial carcinoma, treated by hysterectomy, were retrieved from the archives of Vancouver General Hospital (19831998). For each tumor, the architectural pattern, nuclear grade, and mitotic index were assessed. The tumor architectural pattern, nuclear grade, and mitotic index were significant predictors of patient outcome (P<0.0001 for each, by univariate analysis). There were no prognostic differences between patients having predominantly solid versus papillary tumors, or tumors with mild versus moderate nuclear atypia. The tumors were then classified into high and low grade based on assessment of these three features. The presence of at least two criteria of these three: 1) predominantly papillary or solid growth pattern, 2) mitotic index greater than or equal to6/10 high power fields, or 3) severe nuclear atypia, resulted in a tumor being considered high grade. Low-grade tumors satisfied at most one of those criteria. The proposed grading system was found to be an independent predictor of patient outcome when patient survival was adjusted for FIGO stage, patient age, and tumor cell type. It also had more prognostic power than other grading systems tested when it was applied to all tumors, regardless of their cell type; however, the FIGO grading system was superior for prognostication when only carcinomas of endometrioid type were considered. With the FIGO grading system, no significant difference in survival was observed between patients with grade I and grade 2 tumors. Combining FIGO grades I and 2 results in a binary system (grades I and 2 vs. grade 3) that was the most prognostically significant grading system tested, with the additional advantages of being highly reproducible and familiar to practicing pathologists.
引用
收藏
页码:295 / 304
页数:10
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   Markers of proliferative activity are predictors of patient outcome for low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma but not papillary serous carcinoma of endometrium [J].
Al Kushi, A ;
Lim, P ;
Aquino-Parsons, C ;
Gilks, CB .
MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2002, 15 (04) :365-371
[2]  
Alameda F, 2001, AM J SURG PATHOL, V25, P1556, DOI 10.1097/00000478-200112000-00014
[3]  
AMBROS RA, 1994, AM J SURG PATHOL, V18, P569
[4]   CONFIRMATION OF THE PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF THE ECPI-1 SCORE (MYOMETRIAL INVASION, DNA-PLOIDY AND MEAN SHORTEST NUCLEAR AXIS) IN FIGO STAGE-I ENDOMETRIAL CANCER-PATIENTS WITH LONG FOLLOW-UP [J].
BAAK, JPA ;
SNIJDERS, WP ;
VANDIEST, PJ ;
ARMEEHORVATH, E ;
KENEMANS, P .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 1995, 5 (02) :112-116
[5]  
CHRISTOPHERSON WM, 1982, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V77, P534
[6]   Endometrioid carcinoma of the uterine corpus: A review of its pathology with emphasis on recent advances and problematic aspects [J].
Clement, PB ;
Young, TH .
ADVANCES IN ANATOMIC PATHOLOGY, 2002, 9 (03) :145-184
[7]  
CLEMENT PB, 2000, ATLAS GYNECOLOGICAL, P155
[8]  
COX DR, 1972, J R STAT SOC B, V34, P187
[9]  
CRAMER SF, 1987, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V111, P819
[10]  
CREASMAN WT, 1988, GYNECOL ONCOL, V35, P125