Diagnostic reproducibility determination of endometrial hyperplasia as well as well differentiated adenocarcinoma and comparison of morphologic with computerized morphometric data
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22100/jkh.v2i4.257Keywords:
Hyperplasia, Reproducibility, VPS, SDSNA, Out SDAbstract
Introduction: Endometrial hyperplasia is common disease with difficulty in diagnosis and management in over years. According to WHOM classification low to moderate diagnostic reproducibility reported in different studies with need for new classification system. Presented new strategy based on objectively measured parameters such as VPS, SDSNA and OUTSD and calculated D-score. Morphometric analysis with higher accuracy and reproducibility will divided endometrial hyperplasia to EH and EIN subgroups.
Methods and materials: Archival paraffin-embedded biopsy and curettage specimens (n=100) of both endometrial hyperplasia and well differentiated Adenocarcinoma selected. Then inter & intra observer agreement assayed. 55 of 100 candidate specimens yielded suitable regions for morphometric assay. Analysis performed on delineated H&E stained sections. D-score was calculated, incorporating Volume percentage stroma (VPS), standard deviation of shortest nuclear axis (SDSNA) and gland outer surface density (OUTSD).
Results: Pathologists morphologic data showing overall moderate inter observer reproducibility (p<0.0001, K=0.5372) and excellent intra observer reproducibility (p<0.0000, K=o.8690) as calculated with statistical software and weighted kappa test. Higher diagnosis reproducibility were seen in SH & WDA subgroups and lower ones in CH & AH. Case by case comparison of computerized D-score and VPS with pathologists diagnosis shows a strong concordances with pathologist data no: 1 (p<0.05) with higher experience in gynecopathology. Discordances were seen between histopathology assessment of pathologists No: 2 & 3, (p>0.05) and D-score as calculated with post Hoc test and Sheffe exam.
Conclusion: Inter observer reproducibility is not sufficient for treatment protocol and an alternative strategy such as morphometric analysis with higher accuracy and reproducibility shows more benefit in this regard especially in lower experience pathologists.
References
Haines & Taylor; Obstetrical & Gynaecological Pathology; 5th ed. 2003.
Cullen T; Cancer of The Uterus, Its Pathology, Symptomatology, Diagnosis & Treatment; 1900; A&L; NY.
Fox H. Book review: The Endometrium. Histopathology 1982; 6: 711.
Stephen S. Sternberg. Diaghostic Surgical Pathology; 3rd ed. 1999.
Kurman RJ, Kaminski PF, Norris HJ. The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia. A Long Term Study of Untreated Hyperplasia 1985.
Mutter GL. Diagnosis of premalignant endometrial disease. J Clinical Pathology 2002; 55: 326-331.
Skov BG, Broholm H, Engel U, Franzmann MB, Nielsen AL, Lauritzen AF, et al. Comparison of the reproducibility of the WHO classifications of 1975 and 1994 of endometrial hyperplasia. International Journal of Gynecological Pathology 1997; 16: 33-37.
Mutter GL, Baak JP, Crum CP, Richart RM, Ferenczy A, Faquin WC. Endometrial precancer diagnosis by histopathology, clonal analysis and computerized morphometry. J Pathol 2000; 190:462-9.
Mutter GL, Baak JP. EIN and WHO 94. Journal of Clinical Pathology 2005; 58: 1-6.
Baak JP, Ørbo A, van Diest PJ, Jiwa M, de Bruin P, Broeckaert M, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the morphometric D-score for prediction of the outcome of endometrial hyperplasias. Am J Surg Pathol 2001 ;25: 930-5.
George L, Mutter M.D. Histopathology of genetically defined endometrial precancers. International Journal of Gynecological Pathology 2000; 19: 301-309.
Dunton CJ, Baak JP, Palazzo JP, et al. Use of computerized morphometric analyses of endometrial hyperplasia in the prediction of coexistent cancer. Am J Obstet GynecoI1996;174: 1518-21.
Baak JPA, Kuik OJ, Bezemer PD. The additional prognostic value of morphometric nuclear arrangement and DNA ploidy to other morphometric features In endometrial hyperplasia. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1994;4:289-97.
Kendall BS, Ronnett BM, Isacson C, Cho KR, Hedrick L, Diener-West M, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia, Atypical hyperplasia and well-differentiated carcinoma. American Journal of Surgical Pathology 1998; 22: 1012-1019.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
