Assessment of Preoperative Endometrial Histopathological Sampling as a Predictor of Final Surgical Pathology in Endometrial Cancer

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the agreement between the histopathological diagnoses of preoperative endometrial samples and surgical specimens and correlate the agreement between the diagnoses with the impact on surgical management and the survival of patients with endometrial adenocarcinomas.

Methods Sixty-two patients treated for endometrial cancer at a university hospital from 2002 to 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. The histopathological findings of preoperative endometrial samples and of surgical specimens were analyzed. The patients were subjected to hysterectomy as well as adjuvant treatment, if necessary, and clinical follow-up, according to the institutional protocol. Lesions were classified as endometrioid tumor (type 1) grades 1, 2, or 3 or non-endometrioid carcinoma (type 2).

Results The agreement between the histopathological diagnoses based on preoperative endometrial samples and surgical specimens was fair (Kappa: 0.40; p < 0.001). However, the agreement was very significant for tumor type and grade, in which a higher concordance occurred at a higher grade. The percentage of patients with lymph nodes affected was 19.2%. Although most patients presenting with disease remission or cure were in the early stages (90.5%), there were no significant differences between those patients who had a misdiagnosis (11/16; 68.8%) and those who had a correct diagnosis (25/33; 75.8%) based on preoperative endometrial sampling (p = 0.605).

Conclusion Our findings corroborate the literature and confirm the under staging of preoperative endometrial samples based on histopathological assessment, especially for lower grade endometrial tumors. We suggest that the preoperative diagnosis should be complemented with other methods to better plan the surgical management strategy.

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar a concordância entre os diagnósticos histopatológicos de amostras endometriais pré-operatórias e cirúrgicas de pacientes com adenocarcinomas endometriais e avaliar o impacto da concordância entre os diagnósticos no planejamento cirúrgico e sobrevida das pacientes.

Métodos Dados de 62 pacientes com câncer de endométrio operadas entre 2002 a 2011 em um hospital universitário foram avaliadas retrospectivamente. As pacientes foram submetidas à histerectomia e tratamento adjuvante, se necessário, e acompanhadas clinicamente de acordo com o protocolo institucional. Foram avaliados os resultados das análises histopatológicas das amostras endometriais pré-operatórias e cirúrgicas. As lesões foram classificadas como tumor endometrioide (tipo 1) graus 1, 2 ou 3 ou carcinoma não endometrioide (tipo 2).

Resultados De modo geral, houve uma concordância baixa entre os diagnósticos histopatológicos das amostras endometriais pré-operatórias e cirúrgicas (Kappa: 0,40; p < 0,001). Entretanto, uma alta concordância entre os diagnósticos foi observada nos tumores de graus mais elevados. Comprometimento de linfonodos ocorreu em 19,2% das pacientes e a maioria das que apresentaram remissão ou cura foram diagnosticadas nos estágios iniciais da doença (90,5%). Não houve diferença significativa na taxa de remissão ou cura entre as pacientes que tiveram concordância (25/33; 75,8%) ou divergência (11/16; 68,8%) entre os resultados histopatológicos pré-operatórios e cirúrgicos (p = 0,605).

Conclusão Nossos achados corroboram a literatura e confirmam o sub-estadiamento de amostras endometriais pré-operatórias com base na avaliação histopatológica, especialmente para tumores endometriais de baixo grau. Outros métodos complementares são necessários para um diagnóstico pré-operatório mais preciso a fim de melhorar o planejamento cirúrgico.

Keywords

cancer of the endometrium - histopathological diagnosis - diagnostic method - endometrial cancer surgery

Descritores

câncer do endométrio - diagnóstico histopatológico - método diagnóstico - cirurgia de câncer endometrial

Contributions

Mario Augusto Silveira Bueno Piotto contributed to study design, execution, manuscript drafting, critically revising and discussing of the article and final approval of the version to be published. Gustavo Rubino de Azevedo Focchi contributed to study execution, sample analysis, revising and final approval of the version to be published. Renato Moretti Marques contributed to data collection and final approval of the version to be published. Andressa Melina Severino Teixeira contributed to data collection and final approval of the version to be published. Wagner José Gonçalves contributed to critically revising and discussing of the article and final approval of the version to be published. Sergio Mancini Nicolau contributed to study design, execution, manuscript drafting, critically revising and discussing of the article and final approval of the version to be published.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 18. Juli 2019

Angenommen: 07. Mai 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. Oktober 2020

• References

• 1 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019; 69 (01) 7-34 DOI: 10.3322/caac.21551.
• 2 Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Nacional de Câncer [Internet]. Estatísticas de câncer. 2019 [cited 2019 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.inca.gov.br/numeros-de-cancer
• 3 Watari H, Mitamura T, Moriwaki M, Hosaka M, Ohba Y, Sudo S. et al. Survival and failure pattern of patients with endometrial cancer after extensive surgery including systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009; 19 (09) 1585-1590 DOI: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a833cc.
• 4 Münstedt K, Grant P, Woenckhaus J, Roth G, Tinneberg HR. Cancer of the endometrium: current aspects of diagnostics and treatment. World J Surg Oncol 2004; 2: 24 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-2-24.
• 5 Zaino RJ. FIGO staging of endometrial adenocarcinoma: a critical review and proposal. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2009; 28 (01) 1-9 DOI: 10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181846c6d.
• 6 Leitao Jr MM, Kehoe S, Barakat RR, Alektiar K, Gattoc LP, Rabbitt C. et al. Comparison of D&C and office endometrial biopsy accuracy in patients with FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 113 (01) 105-108 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.017.
• 7 Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman RJ, Creasman WT, Heller P, Homesley HD, Graham JE. Relationship between surgical-pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 1991; 40 (01) 55-65 DOI: 10.1016/0090-8258(91)90086-k.
• 8 Mariani A, Webb MJ, Keeney GL, Aletti G, Podratz KC. Endometrial cancer: predictors of peritoneal failure. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 89 (02) 236-242 DOI: 10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00052-0.
• 9 Cragun JM, Havrilesky LJ, Calingaert B, Synan I, Secord AA, Soper JT. et al. Retrospective analysis of selective lymphadenectomy in apparent early-stage endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23 (16) 3668-3675 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.144.
• 10 Chi DS, Barakat RR, Palayekar MJ, Levine DA, Sonoda Y, Alektiar K. et al. The incidence of pelvic lymph node metastasis by FIGO staging for patients with adequately surgically staged endometrial adenocarcinoma of endometrioid histology. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008; 18 (02) 269-273 DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00996.x.
• 11 Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones III H, Ngan HY, Pecorelli S. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000; 70 (02) 209-262 DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7292(00)90001-8.
• 12 Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmar MK. ASTEC study group. Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet 2009; 373 (9658): 125-136 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61766-3.
• 13 Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, Lissoni AA, Signorelli M, Scambia G. et al. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100 (23) 1707-1716 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn397.
• 14 Uccella S, Podratz KC, Aletti GD, Mariani A. Re: Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101 (12) 897-898 , author reply 898–899 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp124.
• 15 Cooke EW, Pappas L, Gaffney DK. Does the revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for endometrial cancer lead to increased discrimination in patient outcomes?. Cancer 2011; 117 (18) 4231-4237 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26030.
• 16 Oakley G, Nahhas WA. Endometrial adenocarcinoma: therapeutic impact of preoperative histopathologic examination of endometrial tissue. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1989; 10 (04) 255-260
• 17 Petersen RW, Quinlivan JA, Casper GR, Nicklin JL. Endometrial adenocarcinoma--presenting pathology is a poor guide to surgical management. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 40 (02) 191-194 DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.2000.tb01145.x.
• 18 Soothill PW, Alcock CJ, MacKenzie IZ. Discrepancy between curettage and hysterectomy histology in patients with stage 1 uterine malignancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96 (04) 478-481 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb02427.x.
• 19 Jones III HW. The importance of grading in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1999; 74 (01) 1-2 DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1999.5508.
• 20 Batista TP, Cavalcanti CL, Tejo AA, Bezerra AL. Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis for predicting the final pathology grading in uterine endometrioid carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016; 42 (09) 1367-1371 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.009.
• 21 Leitao Jr MM, Kehoe S, Barakat RR, Alektiar K, Gattoc LP, Rabbitt C. et al. Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis of FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 111 (02) 244-248 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.033.
• 22 Phelippeau J, Canlorbe G, Bendifallah S, Naoura I, Lefevre M, Ballester M, Daraï E. Preoperative diagnosis of tumor grade and type in endometrial cancer by pipelle sampling and hysteroscopy: Results of a French study. Surg Oncol 2016; 25 (04) 370-377 DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2016.08.004.
• 23 Garcia TS, Appel M, Rivero R, Kliemann L, Wender MC. Agreement between preoperative endometrial sampling and surgical specimen findings in endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27 (03) 473-478 DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000922.
• 24 Bezerra AL, Batista TP, Martins MR, Carneiro VC. Surgical treatment of clinically early-stage endometrial carcinoma without systematic lymphadenectomy. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2014; 60 (06) 571-576 DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.60.06.017.
• 25 Visser NCM, Reijnen C, Massuger LFAG, Nagtegaal ID, Bulten J, Pijnenborg JMA. Accuracy of endometrial sampling in endometrial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (04) 803-813 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002261.
• 26 Wang X, Zhang H, Di W, Li W. Clinical factors affecting the diagnostic accuracy of assessing dilation and curettage vs frozen section specimens for histologic grade and depth of myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201 (02) 194.e1-194.e10 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.05.003.
• 27 Kilgore LC, Partridge EE, Alvarez RD, Austin JM, Shingleton HM, Noojin 3rd F, Conner W. Adenocarcinoma of the endometrium: survival comparisons of patients with and without pelvic node sampling. Gynecol Oncol 1995; 56 (01) 29-33
• 28 Frost JA, Webster KE, Bryant A, Morrison J. Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 10: CD007585 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007585.pub4.
• 29 May K, Bryant A, Dickinson HO, Kehoe S, Morrison J. Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (01) CD007585 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007585.pub2.
• 30 Chan JK, Cheung MK, Huh WK, Osann K, Husain A, Teng NN, Kapp DS. Therapeutic role of lymph node resection in endometrioid corpus cancer: a study of 12,333 patients. Cancer 2006; 107 (08) 1823-1830 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22185.
• 31 Lutman CV, Havrilesky LJ, Cragun JM, Secord AA, Calingaert B, Berchuck A. et al. Pelvic lymph node count is an important prognostic variable for FIGO stage I and II endometrial carcinoma with high-risk histology. Gynecol Oncol 2006; 102 (01) 92-97 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.11.032.
• 32 van Hanegem N, Prins MM, Bongers MY, Opmeer BC, Sahota DS, Mol BWJ, Timmermans A. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 197: 147-155 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.12.008.
• 33 Kapucuoglu N, Bulbul D, Tulunay G, Temel MA. Reproducibility of grading systems for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma and their relation with pathologic prognostic parameters. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008; 18 (04) 790-796 DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01067.x.
• 34 Lee JY, Kim YH, Lee JM, Kim K, Kang S, Lim MC. et al. Role of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and histological assessment in identifying patients with a low risk of endometrial cancer: a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary study. Oncotarget 2017; 8 (62) 106009-106016 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.22520.
• 35 Todo Y, Watari H, Okamoto K, Hareyama H, Minobe S, Kato H, Sakuragi N. et al. Tumor volume successively reflects the state of disease progression in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 129 (03) 472-477 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.02.034.
• 36 Larson DM, Connor GP, Broste SK, Krawisz BR, Johnson KK. Prognostic significance of gross myometrial invasion with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88 (03) 394-398 DOI: 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00161-5.