Selective vs Complete Sampling in Hysterectomy Specimens Performed for Atypical Hyperplasia

Factors associated with interobserver variation amongst pathologists in the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Reproducible diagnoses of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) remains challenging and has potential implications for patient management. This systematic review aimed to identify pathologist-specific factors associated with interobserver variation in the diagnosis and reporting of EH.

METHODS

Three electronic databases, namely MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, were searched from 1st January 2000 to 25th March 2023, using relevant key words and subject headings. Eligible studies reported on pathologist-specific factors or working practices influencing interobserver variation in the diagnosis of EH, using either the World Health Organisation (WHO) 2014 or 2020 classification or the endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) classification system. Quality assessment was undertaken using the QUADAS-2 tool, and findings were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified. Interobserver variation was shown to be significant even amongst specialist gynaecological pathologists in most studies. Few studies investigated pathologist-specific characteristics, but pathologists were shown to have different diagnostic styles, with some more likely to under-diagnose and others likely to over-diagnose EH. Some novel working practices were identified, such as grading the "degree" of nuclear atypia and the incorporation of objective methods of diagnosis such as semi-automated quantitative image analysis/deep learning models.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlighted the impact of pathologist-specific factors and working practices in the accurate diagnosis of EH, although few studies have been conducted. Further research is warranted in the development of more objective criteria that could improve reproducibility in EH diagnostic reporting, as well as determining the applicability of novel methods such as grading the degree of nuclear atypia in clinical settings.

Endometrial Biopsy: Indications, Techniques and Recommendations. An Evidence-Based Guideline for Clinical Practice

This practice guideline provides updated evidence for the gynecologist who performs endometrial biopsy (EB) in gynecologic clinical practice. An international committee of gynecology experts developed the recommendations according to AGREE Reporting Guideline. An adequate tissue sampling is mandatory when performing an EB. Blind methods should not be first choice in patients with suspected endometrial malignancy. Hysteroscopy is the targeted-biopsy method with highest diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. Blind suction techniques are not reliable for the diagnosis of endometrial polyps. In low resources settings, and in absence of the capacity to perform office hysteroscopy, blind techniques could be used for EB. Hysteroscopic punch biopsy allows to collect only limited amount of endometrial tissue. grasp biopsy technique should be considered first choice in reproductive aged women, bipolar electrode chip biopsy should be preferred with hypotrophic or atrophic endometrium. EB is required for the final diagnosis of chronic endometritis. There is no consensus regarding which endometrial thickness cut-off should be used for recommending EB in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. EB should be offered to young women with abnormal uterine bleeding and risk factors for endometrial carcinoma. Endometrial pathology should be excluded with EB in nonobese women with unopposed hyperestrogenism. Hysteroscopy with EB is useful in patients with abnormal bleeding even without sonographic evidence of pathology. EB has high sensitivity for detecting intrauterine pathologies. In postmenopausal women with uterine bleeding, EB is recommended. Women with sonographic endometrial thickness > 4mm using tamoxifen should undergo hysteroscopic EB.

Grossly unremarkable cervix in endometrial carcinomas: lymphovascular space invasion and microcystic elongated and fragmented pattern may be associated with high incidence of cervical stromal involvement

Accurate staging of endometrial carcinoma is crucial to optimize patients' care. A pivotal parameter that pathologists evaluate to guide staging is the presence of cervical stromal involvement. However, the standard protocol for adequate sampling of the cervix is lacking. A total of 71 grossly unremarkable cervices in hysterectomy specimens with endometrial carcinomas have been studied. Sixty-three (89.7%), five (7.0%), and three (4.2%) were FIGO stage I, II, and III, respectively. Of 71 (8.5%) cases, 6 cases had cervical stromal involvement, among which, 4 (67%) showed endometrioid carcinoma (EC), 1 case of serous carcinoma, and 1 carcinosarcoma. Microcystic elongated and fragmented (MELF) pattern was identified in 12 (16.9%) cases, among which 11 were EC. The presence of MELF pattern was associated with advanced age, deeper myometrial invasion, and advanced FIGO stage. Tumors with lower uterine segment involvement (5/6; 80%), lymphovascular space invasion (4/6; 67%), and MELF pattern (3/6; 50.0%) tended to have cervical stromal involvement. Thus, we provide evidence that the presence of these features in hysterectomy specimens from patients with endometrial carcinoma may warrant extended sampling of the cervix while submitting four representative sections (one section from each quadrant) seems adequate to evaluate for occult cervical stromal involvement in grossly unremarkable cervices in the absence of these features.