21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosis: Use of FIGO Grading and Genomic Subcategories in Clinical Practice: Recommendations of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this review, we sought to address 2 important issues in the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma: how to grade endometrial endometrioid carcinomas and how to incorporate the 4 genomic subcategories of endometrial carcinoma, as identified through The Cancer Genome Atlas, into clinical practice. The current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading scheme provides prognostic information that can be used to guide the extent of surgery and use of adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy. We recommend moving toward a binary scheme to grade endometrial endometrioid carcinomas by considering International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics defined grades 1 and 2 tumors as “low grade” and grade 3 tumors as “high grade.” The current evidence base does not support the use of a 3-tiered grading system, although this is considered standard by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the College of American Pathologists. As for the 4 genomic subtypes of endometrial carcinoma (copy number low/p53 wild-type, copy number high/p53 abnormal, polymerase E mutant, and mismatch repair deficient), which only recently have been identified, there is accumulating evidence showing these categories can be reproducibly diagnosed and accurately assessed based on biopsy/curettage specimens as well as hysterectomy specimens. Furthermore, this subclassification system can be adapted for current clinical practice and is of prognostic significance independent of conventional variables used for risk assessment in patients with endometrial carcinoma (eg, stage). It is too soon to recommend the routine use of genomic classification in this setting; however, with further evidence, this system may become the basis for the subclassification of all endometrial carcinomas, supplanting (partially or completely) histotype, and grade. These recommendations were developed from the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists Endometrial Carcinoma project.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers

          Background: Classification of endometrial carcinomas (ECs) by morphologic features is inconsistent, and yields limited prognostic and predictive information. A new system for classification based on the molecular categories identified in The Cancer Genome Atlas is proposed. Methods: Genomic data from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) support classification of endometrial carcinomas into four prognostically significant subgroups; we used the TCGA data set to develop surrogate assays that could replicate the TCGA classification, but without the need for the labor-intensive and cost-prohibitive genomic methodology. Combinations of the most relevant assays were carried forward and tested on a new independent cohort of 152 endometrial carcinoma cases, and molecular vs clinical risk group stratification was compared. Results: Replication of TCGA survival curves was achieved with statistical significance using multiple different molecular classification models (16 total tested). Internal validation supported carrying forward a classifier based on the following components: mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry, POLE mutational analysis and p53 immunohistochemistry as a surrogate for ‘copy-number' status. The proposed molecular classifier was associated with clinical outcomes, as was stage, grade, lymph-vascular space invasion, nodal involvement and adjuvant treatment. In multivariable analysis both molecular classification and clinical risk groups were associated with outcomes, but differed greatly in composition of cases within each category, with half of POLE and mismatch repair loss subgroups residing within the clinically defined ‘high-risk' group. Combining the molecular classifier with clinicopathologic features or risk groups provided the highest C-index for discrimination of outcome survival curves. Conclusions: Molecular classification of ECs can be achieved using clinically applicable methods on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples, and provides independent prognostic information beyond established risk factors. This pragmatic molecular classification tool has potential to be used routinely in guiding treatment for individuals with endometrial carcinoma and in stratifying cases in future clinical trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Poor interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of high-grade endometrial carcinoma.

              Patients with high-grade subtypes of endometrial carcinoma (grade 3 endometrioid, serous, clear cell, or carcinosarcoma) have a relatively poor prognosis. The specific subtype may be used to guide patient management, but there is little information on the reproducibility of subtype diagnosis in cases of high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Fifty-six cases diagnosed as a high-grade subtype of endometrial carcinoma were identified from the pathology archives of Vancouver General Hospital. All slides for each case were reviewed independently by 3 pathologists, who diagnosed the specific tumor subtype(s) and assigned the percentage of each subtype for mixed tumors. Agreement between observers was categorized as follows: major disagreement: (A) no consensus for low-grade endometrioid versus high-grade carcinoma (any subtype), or (B) no consensus with respect to the predominant high-grade subtype present; minor disagreement: consensus was reached about the cell type of the predominant component of a mixed tumor, but there was disagreement about the subtype of the minor component. A tissue microarray was constructed from these cases and immunostained for p16, ER, PR, PTEN, and p53. In 35 of 56 (62.5%) cases, there was agreement between all 3 reviewers regarding the subtype diagnosis of the exclusive (in pure tumors) or predominant (in mixed tumors) high-grade component. Of these cases, there was a minor disagreement (ie, disagreement about the minor high-grade component subtype in a mixed tumor) in 4 cases (4/56, 7.1%). In 20 of 56 (35.8%) cases there was a major disagreement; in 17 (30.4%) of these cases there was no consensus about the major subtype diagnosis, whereas in 3 (5.4%) cases there was disagreement about whether a component of high-grade endometrial carcinoma was present. In the final case, all 3 reviewers diagnosed the case as low-grade endometrioid carcinoma, disagreeing with the original diagnosis of high-grade carcinoma. The most frequent areas of disagreement were serous versus clear cell (7 cases) and serous versus grade 3 endometrioid (6 cases). Immunostaining results using the 5-marker immunopanel were then used to adjudicate in the 6 cases in which there was disagreement between reviewers with respect to serous versus endometrioid carcinoma, and these supported a diagnosis of serous carcinoma in 4 of 6 cases and endometrioid carcinoma in 2 of 6 cases. Pairwise comparison between the reviewers for the 20 cases classified as showing major disagreement was as follows: reviewer 1 and reviewer 2 agreed in 5/20 cases, reviewer 1 and reviewer 3 agreed in 7/20 cases, and reviewer 2 and reviewer 3 agreed in 8/20 cases, indicating that disagreements were not because of a single reviewer holding outlier opinions. Diagnostic consensus among 3 reviewers about the exclusive or major subtype of high-grade endometrial carcinoma was reached in only 35/56 (62.5%) cases, and in 4 of these cases there was disagreement about the minor component present. This poor reproducibility did not reflect systematic bias on the part of any 1 reviewer. There is a need for molecular tools to aid in the accurate and reproducible diagnosis of high-grade endometrial carcinoma subtype.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Gynecol Pathol
                Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol
                PGP
                International Journal of Gynecological Pathology
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                0277-1691
                1538-7151
                January 2019
                14 December 2018
                : 38
                : Iss 1 Suppl 1
                : S64-S74
                Affiliations
                Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (R.A.S, K.J.P.)
                Department of Pathology, Stony Brook Hospital, SUNY, Stony Brook (C.T.), New York
                Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (A.M.)
                Pathology Department, University Hospital Arnau de Vilanova and University Hospital of Bellvitge, Biomedical Research Institute, and Bellvitge Biomedical Institute, University of Lleida, CIBERONC, Spain (X.M.-G.)
                Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (E.O.)
                Department of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine and the Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut (V.P.)
                Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet and Department of Pathology and Cytology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (J.C.)
                Department of Pathology, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK (W.G.M.)
                Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada (C.B.G.)
                Author notes
                Address correspondence and reprint requests to Robert A. Soslow, MD, Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065. E-mail: soslowr@ 123456mskcc.org .
                Article
                00006
                10.1097/PGP.0000000000000518
                6295928
                30550484
                f25eaca9-6ada-43e6-b307-66a5800cc95a
                Copyright © 2018 International Society of Gynecological Pathologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Categories
                Articles
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                endometrial cancer,figo grade,the cancer genome atlas,tcga,genomic subtype

                Comments

                Comment on this article