Vanishing endometrial carcinoma in hysterectomy specimens: probable implications for fertility sparing management

Analysis of vanishing endometrial cancer by pathological types

PURPOSE

We asked why endometrial cancer sometimes vanishes.

METHODS

A total of 454 patients diagnosed with endometrioid-type endometrial cancer (EC) (via endometrial sampling) and treated in our clinic over the past 5 years were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups: vanishing and residual, depending on whether a tumor was detected in the postoperative hysterectomy specimen. Patient age, numbers of pregnancies and deliveries, menopausal status, systemic disease status, hemogram parameters, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grade, and invasion status (evident on magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

ECs vanished in 42 (9.25%) patients. The vanishing rates were 19.7% (37/187) in FIGO grade 1 patients, 2.1% (5/238) in grade 2 patients, and 0% (0/29) in grade 3 patients. The average age was lower in the vanishing than the residual group, but the premenopausal status and grade 1 tumor rates were higher (both p < 0.001). An absence of invasion (as revealed by MRI) was more common in the vanishing group (p < 0.001). No recurrence developed in the vanishing group, but recurrences were noted in 3.3% (14/412) of the residual group. There were no significant between-group differences in any of the numbers of pregnancies or births, systemic disease status, or hemogram parameters (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Vanishing EC is more likely in premenopausal women with endometrioid grade 1 EC (as revealed by endometrial biopsy) who lack myometrial invasion on MRI.

The presence of an endometrioid component does not alter the clinicopathologic profile or survival of patients with uterine serous cancer: A gynecologic oncology group (GOG/NRG) study of 934 women

OBJECTIVE

While most cases of endometrial cancer can readily be classified as pure endometrioid, pure serous, or another type, others show an apparent mixture of serous and endometrioid components, or indeterminate serous versus endometrioid features. Since serous histology carries a worse prognosis than endometrioid, Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol GOG-8032 was established to examine whether the presence of a non-serous component is a favorable feature in an otherwise serous cancer.

METHODS

934 women with serous cancer were prospectively identified among a larger group enrolled in GOG-0210. Six expert gynecologic pathologists classified each case as pure serous (SER, n=663), mixed serous and endometrioid (SER-EM-M, n=138), or indeterminate serous v. endometrioid (SER-EM-I, n=133) by H&E morphology. Follow-up data from GOG-0210 were analyzed.

RESULTS

The subgroups did not differ on BMI, race, ethnicity, lymphovascular invasion, cervical invasion, ovary involvement, peritoneal involvement, omental involvement, FIGO stage, or planned adjuvant treatment. SER-EM-M patients were younger (p=0.0001) and less likely to have nodal involvement (p=0.0287). SER patients were less likely to have myoinvasion (p=0.0002), and more likely to have adnexal involvement (p=0.0108). On univariate analysis, age, serous subtype, race, and components of FIGO staging predicted both progression-free and overall survival. On multiple regression, however, serous subtype (SER, SER-EM-M, or SER-EM-I) did not significantly predict survival.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few clinicopathologic differences between cases classified as SER, SER-EM-M, and SER-EM-I. Cases with a mixture of serous and endometrioid morphology, as well as cases with morphology indeterminate for serous v. endometrioid type, had the same survival as pure serous cases. NCT#: NCT00340808.