Audit of Endometrial Cancer Pathology for a Regional Gynecological Oncology Multidisciplinary Meeting

Is it safe to operate selected low-risk endometrial cancer patients in secondary hospitals?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of a preoperative screening algorithm in identifying low-risk endometrial cancer (EC) patients to ensure optimal care.

METHODS

A total of 277 patients with primary EC confirmed through biopsy underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients with risk factors for advanced high-risk EC, such as non-endometrioid histology, high-grade differentiation status, deep myometrial invasion, or spread beyond the uterine corpus, were systematically excluded. The remaining preoperatively screened patients with stage IA low-grade endometrioid EC (EEC) (n = 93) underwent surgery in a tertiary hospital. The accuracy of the preoperative diagnosis was evaluated by comparing the findings with the postoperative histopathological results. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using 8-year follow-up data.

RESULTS

Postoperative histopathological analysis revealed that all patients had grade 1-2 EEC localized to the corpus uteri. Only three patients had deep myometrial invasion (stage IB), but they remained disease-free after 6-9 years of follow-up. The median follow-up time for all patients was 8.7 years. The DFS was 7.6 years, and the OS was 8.6 years. Two patients with stage IA grade 1 EEC experienced relapse and, despite treatment, died of EC. No other EC-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The screening algorithm accurately identified low-risk EC patients without compromising survival. Therefore, the algorithm appears to be feasible for selecting patients for surgery in secondary hospitals.

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.

Should Endometrial Cancer Treatment Be Centralized?

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract in Western and emerging countries. In 2012, new cancer cases numbered 319,605, and 76,160 cancer deaths were diagnosed worldwide. ECs are usually diagnosed after menopause; 70% of ECs are diagnosed at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and a 5-year overall survival rate of 77%. On the contrary, women with advanced or recurrent disease have extremely poor outcomes because they show a low response rate to conventional chemotherapy. EC is generally considered easy to treat, although it presents a 5-year mortality of 25%. Though the guidelines (GLs) recommend treatment in specialized centers by physicians specializing in gynecologic oncology, most women are managed by general gynecologists, resulting in differences and discrepancies in clinical management. In this paper we reviewed the literature with the aim of highlighting where the treatment of EC patients requires gynecologic oncologists, as suggested by the GLs. Moreover, we sought to identify the causes of the lack of GL adherence, suggesting useful changes to ensure adequate treatment for all EC patients.

The accuracy of endometrial sampling for the diagnosis of patterns of endometrial pathology in women presenting with abnormal uterine bleeding. More conservative therapeutic approaches

Objectives:

Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is a leading cause of hysterectomies, the cause of which is usually diagnosed with preoperative endometrial sampling. We planned this study to assess the accuracy of diagnosing the histologic patterns of endometrium in the preoperative sample in reference to the final histologic diagnosis in hysterectomy.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed medical charts between January 2011 and December 2015 at a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia and identified 43 cases of AUB with complete documentation. The histologic diagnoses were classified into normal and benign pathology group (N/B), or carcinoma and hyperplasia category (Ca/H). Measures of validity were used to compare endometrial sampling histological diagnoses to diagnoses following hysterectomy and Cohen’s kappa to assess for agreement between the 2 modalities.

Results:

The median age of all patients was 49 years. Preoperative histologic examination showed 53.8% sensitivity, 90% specificity, 70% positive predictive values and 81.8% negative predictive values, 30.1% false positive rates and 18.2% false negative rates. The agreement between preoperative and postoperative histologic diagnoses was moderate (79.1%, k=0.469).

Conclusion:

The accuracy of preoperative histologic examination was moderate. Our findings recommend cautious clinical decision making and limiting hysterectomy to women who do not respond to other therapeutic measures.