Clinical outcome in diagnostically ambiguous foci of ‘gland crowding’ in the endometrium
Division of Women's and Perinatal Pathology, Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.Modern Pathology (Impact Factor: 6.19). 11/2010; 23(11):1486-91. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.140
Premalignant endometrial lesions (endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN)) are clonal neoplasms that arise focally and can be diagnosed using specific criteria: (1) area of glands exceeds that of stroma (glands/stroma >1), (2) nuclear and/or cytoplasmic features of epithelial cells differ between architecturally abnormal glands and normal background glands, and (3) maximum linear dimension exceeds 1 mm. However, localized groups of crowded endometrial glands may be encountered that do not fulfill all of the criteria for EIN, are interpreted as ambiguous, and are reported as 'focal gland crowding'. We conducted a retrospective study of gland crowding using a free-text index search for this term in our pathology files. The age of the patients, number of subsequent specimens, the duration, and the outcome of the follow-ups were recorded. Of the 71,579 consecutive gynecological pathology reports, 206 (0.3%) 'gland crowding' cases were identified, in which 69% (143/206) had follow-up sampling. Of these, 33 (23%) had an outcome diagnosis of EIN (27 cases; 19%) or carcinoma (6 cases; 4%). Included were 18 cases (55%) diagnosed within the first year and presumed concurrent, and an additional 15 (45%) discovered after 1 year and interpreted as a later phase of disease or new events. The term 'crowded glands' is a highly significant finding that carries a substantial risk of an outcome of EIN and occasionally malignancy. It underscores the importance of follow-up when some but not all of the criteria for EIN are encountered in the appropriate clinical setting.
Full-text previewDOI: · Available from: nature.com
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
Conference Paper: Remote ocean surface current measurementCurrent Measurement, Proceedings of the 1982 IEEE Second Working Conference on; 02/1982
- Intraepithelial Neoplasia, 02/2012; , ISBN: 978-953-307-987-5
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) classification is proposed as a new diagnostic system to resolve the limitations of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification in routine practice. Our aim was to find out whether EIN classification excels the WHO classification regarding the accurate prediction of coexisting endometrial carcinomas (EC) in biopsy specimens. We retrospectively re-classified 139 WHO-classified endometrial hyperplasia (EH) cases by subjective EIN diagnosis and compared the incidence of coexisting carcinomas using two classification systems by re-evaluating biopsy and corresponding hysterectomy specimens. Of 139 WHO-classified hyperplasia cases, 36 and 103 were classified as benign and EIN cases, respectively. Forty of 93 cases with atypical EH had EC at hysterectomy as compared with 2/46 cases without atypical EH, while EC was detected in 42/103 cases with EIN, and in 0 of 36 cases without EIN. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for atypical EH vs. non-atypical EH in biopsy specimen was 95.2%, 45.4%, 43.0% and 95.7%, respectively. For EIN vs. benign, the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 37.1%. The incidence of coexisting carcinomas in EIN cases was similar to that in atypical EH cases. However, regarding the exclusion of coexisting carcinomas, EIN criteria of benign lesions excelled the WHO criteria of non-atypical EH/CH.Pathology - Research and Practice 10/2012; 208(12). DOI:10.1016/j.prp.2012.08.009 · 1.40 Impact Factor