Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Utility of Frozen Section Pathology with Endometrial Pre-Malignant Lesions

  • Oz, Murat (Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Education and Research Hospital) ;
  • Ozgu, Emre (Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Education and Research Hospital) ;
  • Korkmaz, Elmas (Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Education and Research Hospital) ;
  • Bayramoglu, Hatice (Department of Pathology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Education and Research Hospital) ;
  • Erkaya, Salim (Department of Gynecology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Education and Research Hospital) ;
  • Gungor, Tayfun (Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health Education and Research Hospital)
  • Published : 2014.08.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Aim: To determine utility of the frozen section (FS) in the operative management of endometrial pre-malignant lesions. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent abdominal hysterectomy with preoperative diagnosis of complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia (CAEH) and simple endometrial hyperplasia (SEH) between May 2007 and December 2013. Frozen and paraffin section (PS) results were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, the positive predictive value (PPV), the negative predictive value (NPV) and the accuracy in predicting EC on FS were evaluated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each parameter. The correlation between FS and PS was calculated as an ${\kappa}$ coefficient. Results: Among 143 preoperatively diagnosed CAEH cases, 60 (42%) were malignant and 83 (58%) were benign in PS; and among 60 malignant cases diagnosed in PS, 43 (71%) were "malignant" in FS. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for FS were 76%, 100%, 100% and 87.5%, respectively. Conclusions: We found that FS is reliable and applicable in the management of endometrial hyperplasias. It is important that the pathologist should be experienced because FS for endometrial pre-malignant lesions has significant inter-observer variability. The other conclusion is that patients with the diagnosis of EH, especially those who are postmenopausal, should undergo surgery where FS investigation is available.

Keywords

References

  1. Acmaz G, Aksoy H, Albayrak E, et al (2014). Evaluation of endometrial precancerous lesions in postmenopausal obese women-a high risk group? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 195-8. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.1.195
  2. Armstrong, AJ, Hurd WW, Elguero S, Barker NM, Zanotti KM (2012). Diagnosis and management of endometrial hyperplasia. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 19, 562-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.05.009
  3. Attard Montalto S, Coutts M, Devaja O, et al (2008). Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis at surgery in pre- malignant and malignant lesions of the endometrium. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol, 29, 435-40.
  4. Balik G, Kagitci M, Ustuner I, Akpinar F, Guvendag Guven ES (2013). Which endometrial pathologies need intraoperative frozen sections? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6121-5. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.10.6121
  5. Bilgin T, Ozuysal S, Ozan H, Atakan T (2004). Coexisting endometrial cancer in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 30, 205-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2004.00178.x
  6. Espindola D, Kennedy KA, Fischer EG (2007). Management of abnormal uterine bleeding and the pathology of endometrial hyperplasia. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 34, 717-37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2007.09.001
  7. Hahn HS, Chun YK, Kwon YI, et al (2010). Concurrent endometrial carcinoma following hysterectomy for atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 150, 80-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.002
  8. Hunter JE, Tritz DE, Howell MG, et al (1994). The prognostic and therapeutic implications of cytologic atypia in patients with endometrial hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol, 55, 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1249
  9. Indermaur MD, Shoup B, Tebes S, Lancaster JM (2007). The accuracy of frozen pathology at time of hysterectomy in patients with complex atypical hyperplasia on preoperative biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 196, 40-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.10.886
  10. Karlsson B, Granberg S, Wikland M, et al (1995). Transvaginal ultrasonography of the endometrium in women with postmenopausal bleeding-a Nordic multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 172, 1488-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(95)90483-2
  11. Kumar S, Medeiros F, Dowdy SC, et al (2012). A prospective assessment of the reliability of frozen section to direct intraoperative decision making in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 127, 525-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.08.024
  12. Kurman RJ, Kaminski PF, Norris HJ (1985). The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia. A long-term study of “untreated” hyperplasia in 170 patients. Cancer, 56, 403-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19850715)56:2<403::AID-CNCR2820560233>3.0.CO;2-X
  13. Kurman RJ, Norris HJ (1982). Evaluation of criteria for distinguishing atypical endometrial hyperplasia from welldifferentiated carcinoma. Cancer, 49, 2547-59. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19820615)49:12<2547::AID-CNCR2820491224>3.0.CO;2-0
  14. Lacey JV Jr. and Chia VM (2009). Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of progression to carcinoma. Maturitas, 63, 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.02.005
  15. Marsden DE and Hacker NF (2001). Optimal management of endometrial hyperplasia. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 15, 393-405. https://doi.org/10.1053/beog.2000.0184
  16. Mesci-Haftaci A, Yavuzcan C (2014). Endometrial curettage in abnormal uterine bleeding and efficacy of progestins for control in cases of hyperplasia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 3737-40. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.8.3737
  17. Montgomery BE, Daum GS, Dunton CJ (2004). Endometrial hyperplasia: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 59, 368-78. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-200405000-00025
  18. Montz FJ, Bristow RE, Bovicelli A, Tomacruz R, Kurman RJ (2002). Intrauterine progesterone treatment of early endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 186, 651-7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.122130
  19. Morotti M, Menada MV, Moioli M, et al (2012). Frozen section pathology at time of hysterectomy accurately predicts endometrial cancer in patients with preoperative diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol, 125, 536-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.02.011
  20. Pecorelli S (2009). Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 105, 103-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012
  21. Pennant S, Manek S, Kehoe S (2008). Endometrial atypical hyperplasia and subsequent diagnosis of endometrial cancer: a retrospective audit and literature review. J Obstet Gynaecol, 28, 632-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610802355817
  22. Randall TC, Kurman RJ (1997). Progestin treatment of atypical hyperplasia and well-differentiated carcinoma of the endometrium in women under age 40. Obstet Gynecol, 90, 434-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00297-4
  23. Salman MC, Usubutun A, Dogan NU, Yuce K (2009). The accuracy of frozen section analysis at hysterectomy in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol, 36, 31-4.
  24. Sherman, ME, Ronnett BM, Ioffe OB, et al (2008). Reproducibility of biopsy diagnoses of endometrial hyperplasia: evidence supporting a simplified classification. Int J Gynecol Pathol, 27, 318-25. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181659167
  25. Shutter J, Wright TC Jr (2005). Prevalence of underlying adenocarcinoma in women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol, 24, 313-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pgp.0000164598.26969.c3
  26. Silverberg SG (2000). Problems in the differential diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma. Mod Pathol, 13, 309-27. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3880053
  27. Skov, BG, Broholm H, Engel U, et al (1997). Comparison of the reproducibility of the WHO classifications of 1975 and 1994 of endometrial hyperplasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol, 16, 33-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004347-199701000-00006
  28. Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R, et al (2006). Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer, 106, 812-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21650
  29. Turan T, Karadag B, Karabuk E, Tulunay G, et al (2012). Accuracy of frozen sections for intraoperative diagnosis of complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 1953-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.5.1953
  30. Wang ZQ, Wang JL, Shen DH, Li XP, Wei LH (2013). Should all endometrioid uterine cancer patients undergo systemic lymphadenectomy? Eur J Surg Oncol, 39, 344-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2012.12.007

Cited by

  1. Lympho-Vascular Space Invasion Indicates Advanced Disease for Uterine Papillary Serous Tumors Arising from Polyps vol.16, pp.10, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.10.4257