• Something wrong with this record ?

The amount of preoperative endometrial tissue surface in relation to final endometrial cancer classification

SW. Vrede, AMC. Hulsman, C. Reijnen, K. Van de Vijver, E. Colas, G. Mancebo, CP. Moiola, A. Gil-Moreno, J. Huvila, M. Koskas, V. Weinberger, L. Minar, E. Jandakova, M. Santacana, X. Matias-Guiu, F. Amant, MPLM. Snijders, HVN. Küsters-Vandevelde,...

. 2022 ; 167 (2) : 196-204. [pub] 20220910

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the amount of preoperative endometrial tissue surface is related to the degree of concordance with final low- and high-grade endometrial cancer (EC). In addition, to determine whether discordance is influenced by sampling method and impacts outcome. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study within the European Network for Individualized Treatment of Endometrial Cancer (ENITEC). Surface of preoperative endometrial tissue samples was digitally calculated using ImageJ. Tumor samples were classified into low-grade (grade 1-2 endometrioid EC (EEC)) and high-grade (grade 3 EEC + non-endometroid EC). RESULTS: The study cohort included 573 tumor samples. Overall concordance between pre- and postoperative diagnosis was 60.0%, and 88.8% when classified into low- and high-grade EC. Upgrading (preoperative low-grade, postoperative high-grade EC) was found in 7.8% and downgrading (preoperative high-grade, postoperative low-grade EC) in 26.7%. The median endometrial tissue surface was significantly lower in concordant diagnoses when compared to discordant diagnoses, respectively 18.7 mm2 and 23.5 mm2 (P = 0.022). Sampling method did not influence the concordance in tumor classification. Patients with preoperative high-grade and postoperative low-grade showed significant lower DSS compared to patients with concordant low-grade EC (P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: The amount of preoperative endometrial tissue surface was inversely related to the degree of concordance with final tumor low- and high-grade. Obtaining higher amount of preoperative endometrial tissue surface does not increase the concordance between pre- and postoperative low- and high-grade diagnosis in EC. Awareness of clinically relevant down- and upgrading is crucial to reduce subsequent over- or undertreatment with impact on outcome.

Biomedical Research Group in Gynaecology Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona CIBERONC Barcelona Spain

Department of Gynaecological Oncology Amsterdam Netherlands Cancer Institute Amsterdam the Netherlands

Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics University Hospital Brno Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital Nijmegen the Netherlands

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Hosepital del Mar PSMAR Barcelona Spain

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Radboud university medical center Nijmegen the Netherlands

Department of Oncology KU Leuven Leuven Belgium

Department of Pathology and Molecular Genetics and Research Laboratory Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova University of Lleida IRBLleida CIBERONC Lleida Spain

Department of Pathology Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital Nijmegen the Netherlands

Department of Pathology Ghent University Hospital Cancer Research Institute Ghent Ghent Belgium

Department of Pathology Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen the Netherlands

Department of Pathology University of Turku Turku Finland

Department of Radiation Oncology Radboud university medical center Nijmegen the Netherlands

Gynaecological Department Vall d'Hebron University Hospital CIBERONC Barcelona Spain

Institute of Pathology University Hospital Brno Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department Bichat Claude Bernard Hospital Paris France

Pathology Department Vall d'Hebron University Hospital CIBERONC Barcelona Spain

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24001333
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240213094544.0
007      
ta
008      
240109s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.08.016 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)36096975
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Vrede, S W $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: stephanie.vrede@radboudumc.nl
245    14
$a The amount of preoperative endometrial tissue surface in relation to final endometrial cancer classification / $c SW. Vrede, AMC. Hulsman, C. Reijnen, K. Van de Vijver, E. Colas, G. Mancebo, CP. Moiola, A. Gil-Moreno, J. Huvila, M. Koskas, V. Weinberger, L. Minar, E. Jandakova, M. Santacana, X. Matias-Guiu, F. Amant, MPLM. Snijders, HVN. Küsters-Vandevelde, ENITEC-consortium, J. Bulten, JMA. Pijnenborg
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the amount of preoperative endometrial tissue surface is related to the degree of concordance with final low- and high-grade endometrial cancer (EC). In addition, to determine whether discordance is influenced by sampling method and impacts outcome. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study within the European Network for Individualized Treatment of Endometrial Cancer (ENITEC). Surface of preoperative endometrial tissue samples was digitally calculated using ImageJ. Tumor samples were classified into low-grade (grade 1-2 endometrioid EC (EEC)) and high-grade (grade 3 EEC + non-endometroid EC). RESULTS: The study cohort included 573 tumor samples. Overall concordance between pre- and postoperative diagnosis was 60.0%, and 88.8% when classified into low- and high-grade EC. Upgrading (preoperative low-grade, postoperative high-grade EC) was found in 7.8% and downgrading (preoperative high-grade, postoperative low-grade EC) in 26.7%. The median endometrial tissue surface was significantly lower in concordant diagnoses when compared to discordant diagnoses, respectively 18.7 mm2 and 23.5 mm2 (P = 0.022). Sampling method did not influence the concordance in tumor classification. Patients with preoperative high-grade and postoperative low-grade showed significant lower DSS compared to patients with concordant low-grade EC (P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: The amount of preoperative endometrial tissue surface was inversely related to the degree of concordance with final tumor low- and high-grade. Obtaining higher amount of preoperative endometrial tissue surface does not increase the concordance between pre- and postoperative low- and high-grade diagnosis in EC. Awareness of clinically relevant down- and upgrading is crucial to reduce subsequent over- or undertreatment with impact on outcome.
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a biopsie $x metody $7 D001706
650    12
$a nádory endometria $x patologie $7 D016889
650    _2
$a endometrium $x patologie $7 D004717
650    12
$a endometroidní karcinom $x chirurgie $x patologie $7 D018269
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Hulsman, A M C $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Reijnen, C $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Van de Vijver, K $u Department of Pathology, Ghent University Hospital, Cancer Research Institute Ghent (CRIG), Ghent, Belgium
700    1_
$a Colas, E $u Biomedical Research Group in Gynaecology, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain
700    1_
$a Mancebo, G $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hosepital del Mar, PSMAR, Barcelona, Spain
700    1_
$a Moiola, C P $u Biomedical Research Group in Gynaecology, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain
700    1_
$a Gil-Moreno, A $u Gynaecological Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain; Pathology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain
700    1_
$a Huvila, J $u Department of Pathology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
700    1_
$a Koskas, M $u Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France
700    1_
$a Weinberger, V $u Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Brno, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Minar, L $u Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Brno, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jandakova, E $u Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Brno, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Santacana, M $u Department of Pathology and Molecular Genetics and Research Laboratory, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, University of Lleida, IRBLleida, CIBERONC, Lleida, Spain
700    1_
$a Matias-Guiu, X $u Department of Pathology and Molecular Genetics and Research Laboratory, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, University of Lleida, IRBLleida, CIBERONC, Lleida, Spain
700    1_
$a Amant, F $u Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Gynaecological Oncology Amsterdam, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Snijders, M P L M $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Küsters-Vandevelde, H V N $u Department of Pathology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Bulten, J $u Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Pijnenborg, J M A $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
710    2_
$a ENITEC-consortium
773    0_
$w MED00001958 $t Gynecologic oncology $x 1095-6859 $g Roč. 167, č. 2 (2022), s. 196-204
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36096975 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240109 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240213094541 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2049766 $s 1211027
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 167 $c 2 $d 196-204 $e 20220910 $i 1095-6859 $m Gynecologic oncology $n Gynecol Oncol $x MED00001958
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240109

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...