Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2022; 82(01): 93-94
DOI: 10.1055/a-1580-0787
GebFra Science
Statement

Comment to: “Diagnostic Benefit of the Detection of Mitotic Figures in Endometriotic Lesions”

Kommentar zu „Diagnostischer Vorteil des Nachweises von Mitosefiguren in endometriotischen Läsionen“
Karl Werner Schweppe
1   Stiftung Endometriose-Forschung, Westerstede, Germany
2   Obst. & Gynec., Endometriose-Zentrum Ammerland, Westerstede, Germany
,
Klaus Bühler
1   Stiftung Endometriose-Forschung, Westerstede, Germany
3   klin.-wissenschaftl. Endometriosezentrum der Univ.-Kliniken des Saarlandes Endometriose-Sprechstunde – Frauenärzte am Staden, Saarbrücken, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Comment on:

Diagnostic Benefit of the Detection of Mitotic Figures in Endometriotic LesionsGeburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2022; 82(01): 85-92
DOI: 10.1055/a-1580-0601

The publication: “Diagnostic Benefit of the Detection of Mitotic Figures in Endometriotic Lesions” by M. Wetzk et al. is of great significance and importance insofar as it shows how the histological diagnosis of active, endocrinologically modulated endometriosis can be described more precisely with a simple method. The mitosis index as an unpretentious morphologic parameter of the activity and proliferation potential of endometriotic implants is of great implication for subsequent treatment and probably for the prognosis of the disease i.e. reaction to medical treatment or risk of recurrences. In the endometriosis centres of excellence certified by the Scientific Endometriosis Research Foundation (SEF) and the European Endometriosis League (EEL), where patients more and more turn to for further therapy or for a second opinion after the detection of endometriosis, we increasingly see only the terse statement of endometriosis in the patho-histological report. However, it does not cost the pathologist much more time to also describe characteristic features of endometriotic implants in the histological report.



Publication History

Received: 09 July 2021

Accepted: 05 August 2021

Article published online:
10 January 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Schweppe KW. Aktive und inaktive Endometriose–eine prognose- und therapierelevante Differentialdiagnose. Zentralbl Gynakol 1999; 121: 330-335
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bouquet de Joliniere J, Major A, Ayoubi JM. et al. It Is Necessary to Purpose an Add-on to the American Classification of Endometriosis? This Disease Can Be Compared to a Malignant Proliferation While Remaining Benign in Most Cases. EndoGram® Is a New Profile Witness of Its Evolutionary Potential. Front Surg 2019; 6: 27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Van Gorp T, Amant F, Neven P. et al. Endometriosis and the development of malignant tumours of the pelvis: a review of literature. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 18: 349-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wei JJ, William J, Bulun S. Endometriosis and Ovarian Cancer: A Review of Clinical, Pathologic, and Molecular Aspects. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2011; 30: 553-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mikhaleva LM, Davydov AI, Patsap OI. et al. Malignant Transformation and Associated Biomarkers of Ovarian Endometriosis: A Narrative Review. Adv Ther 2020; 37: 2580-2603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Van Leeuwen FE, Klip H, Mooij TM. et al. Risk of borderline and invasive ovarian tumours after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization in a large Dutch cohort. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 3456-3465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Vassard D, Schmidt L, Glazer CH. et al. Assisted reproductive technology treatment and risk of ovarian cancer-a nationwide population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod 2019; 34: 2290-2296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar