Endometriosis is an extremely common condition and, in most cases, establishing a histological diagnosis is straightforward, although a variety of benign alterations may result in problems with ...interpretation. In this review, I discuss selected uncommon variants of endometriosis or benign alterations that may result in diagnostic problems. The topics covered include the contentious issue of so‐called atypical endometriosis, stromal endometriosis, polypoid endometriosis, and the association of endometriosis with florid mesothelial hyperplasia. The propensity of endometriosis to undergo neoplastic transformation (especially to endometrioid and clear cell carcinoma) is well known. Selected issues relating to the various neoplasms that can arise in endometriosis are discussed, with a particular concentration on unusual variants of endometrioid carcinoma that result in a disproportionately high number of issues in referral practice. The propensity of ovarian endometrioid carcinomas to show an unexpected (‘aberrant’) immunophenotype with positive staining with ‘intestinal’ markers and negative staining with Mullerian markers is also discussed. Uncommon tumour types that may arise in endometriosis, namely seromucinous neoplasms, mesonephric‐like carcinomas, and somatically derived yolk sac tumours, are also covered.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Ovarian carcinomas comprise a heterogeneous group of neoplasms, the four most common subtypes being serous, endometrioid, clear cell and mucinous. In recent years, our understanding of the underlying ...pathogenesis and initiating molecular events in the different tumour subtypes has greatly increased, and although ovarian carcinoma is often considered clinically as one disease, there is now a much greater realisation that the various subtypes have a different natural behaviour and prognosis. At present, adjuvant therapy is mainly dependent upon tumour stage and grade rather than type; however, this is likely to change in the future with the development of new chemotherapeutic agents and targeted therapies and clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of different agents in clear cell, mucinous and low grade serous carcinomas, neoplasms which are considered relatively resistant to traditional chemotherapeutic regimes. In this review, the major subtypes of ovarian carcinoma are discussed. It is now firmly established that there are two distinct types of ovarian serous carcinoma, low grade and high grade, the former being much less common and arising in many cases from a serous borderline tumour. Low grade and high grade serous carcinoma represent two distinct tumour types with a different underlying pathogenesis rather than low grade and high grade variants of the same neoplasm. Both are usually advanced stage (stage III or IV) at diagnosis. B-raf and k-ras mutations are important molecular events in low grade serous carcinomas while high grade serous carcinomas are almost always associated with TP53 mutation. There is now emerging and compelling evidence that many high grade serous carcinomas (by far the most common subtype of ovarian carcinoma) actually arise from the epithelium of the distal fallopian tube. Future studies regarding the initiating molecular events in the development of this aggressive neoplasm should concentrate on this site. Primary ovarian mucinous carcinomas are uncommon, almost always unilateral and stage I, and largely of so-called intestinal or enteric type. Most arise in a stepwise manner from a pre-existing mucinous cystadenoma and mucinous borderline tumour. Endometrioid and clear cell carcinomas typically present as low stage neoplasms and in many, or most, cases arise from endometriosis; the former are usually well differentiated and there is now evidence that the majority of neoplasms reported in the past as high grade endometrioid carcinoma are of serous type. WT1 is useful in this regard since it is a relatively specific marker of a serous phenotype. It is recommended that different subtypes of ovarian carcinoma are graded using different systems rather than employing a universal grading system.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
In this review, we sought to address 2 important issues in the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma: how to grade endometrial endometrioid carcinomas and how to incorporate the 4 genomic subcategories ...of endometrial carcinoma, as identified through The Cancer Genome Atlas, into clinical practice. The current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading scheme provides prognostic information that can be used to guide the extent of surgery and use of adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy. We recommend moving toward a binary scheme to grade endometrial endometrioid carcinomas by considering International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics defined grades 1 and 2 tumors as "low grade" and grade 3 tumors as "high grade." The current evidence base does not support the use of a 3-tiered grading system, although this is considered standard by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the College of American Pathologists. As for the 4 genomic subtypes of endometrial carcinoma (copy number low/p53 wild-type, copy number high/p53 abnormal, polymerase E mutant, and mismatch repair deficient), which only recently have been identified, there is accumulating evidence showing these categories can be reproducibly diagnosed and accurately assessed based on biopsy/curettage specimens as well as hysterectomy specimens. Furthermore, this subclassification system can be adapted for current clinical practice and is of prognostic significance independent of conventional variables used for risk assessment in patients with endometrial carcinoma (eg, stage). It is too soon to recommend the routine use of genomic classification in this setting; however, with further evidence, this system may become the basis for the subclassification of all endometrial carcinomas, supplanting (partially or completely) histotype, and grade. These recommendations were developed from the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists Endometrial Carcinoma project.
McCluggage W G (2012) Histopathology New developments in endocervical glandular lesions
There is evidence that the prevalence of premalignant and malignant endocervical glandular lesions is ...increasing in real as well as in apparent terms. In this review, new developments and selected controversial aspects of endocervical glandular lesions are covered, concentrating mainly on premalignant and malignant lesions. The terminology of premalignant endocervical glandular lesions is discussed with a comparison of the World Health Organization classification and the cervical glandular intraepithelial neoplasia (CGIN) system, which is in widespread use in the United Kingdom. Primary cervical adenocarcinomas comprise a heterogeneous group of different morphological types, and while it is known that the majority of these are associated with high‐risk human papillomavirus (HPV), it has become clear in recent years that most of the more uncommon morphological types are unassociated with HPV, although they may sometimes be p16‐positive. A spectrum of benign, premalignant and malignant cervical glandular lesions exhibiting gastric differentiation is now recognized; these include type A tunnel clusters, typical and atypical lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia, adenoma malignum and gastric‐type adenocarcinoma. The latter is a recently described variant of primary cervical adenocarcinoma which has a different morphological appearance to the usual endocervical type and which is probably associated with different patterns of spread and a worse prognosis. There is accumulating evidence that ‘early invasive’ cervical adenocarcinomas have an excellent prognosis and are suitable for conservative management. Immunohistochemical markers of value in the distinction between a primary cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma are discussed. While it is well known that a panel of markers comprising oestrogen receptor (ER), vimentin, p16 and monoclonal carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is useful, several major pitfalls are pointed out and this panel of markers is predominantly of value in ‘low‐grade’ adenocarcinomas. A related group of lesions, including cervical ectopic prostatic tissue and vaginal tubulosquamous polyp, are probably derived from para‐urethral Skene’s glands and may be positive with prostatic markers. Recent developments in cervical neuroendocrine neoplasms are discussed, as these are associated not uncommonly with a premalignant or malignant endocervical glandular lesion.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
To inform treatment decisions in women diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia, quantification of the potential for concurrent endometrial cancer and the future risk of progression to cancer is ...required.
We identified studies up to September 2018 that reported on the prevalence of concurrent cancer (within three months of endometrial hyperplasia diagnosis), or the incidence of cancer, identified at least three months after hyperplasia diagnosis. Random-effects meta-analyses produced pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
A total of 36 articles were identified; 15 investigating concurrent and 21 progression to cancer. In pooled analysis of 11 studies of atypical hyperplasia, the pooled prevalence of concurrent endometrial cancer was 32.6% (95% CI: 24.1%, 42.4%) while no studies evaluated concurrent cancer in non-atypical hyperplasia. The risk of progression to cancer was high in atypical hyperplasia (n = 5 studies, annual incidence rate = 8.2%, 95% CI 3.9%, 17.3%) and only one study reported on non-atypical hyperplasia (annual incidence rate = 2.6%, 95% CI: 0.6%, 10.6%).
Overall, a third of women with atypical hyperplasia had concurrent endometrial cancer, although the number of studies, especially population-based, is small. Progression to cancer in atypical hyperplasia was high, but few studies were identified. Population-based estimates are required, in both atypical and non-atypical hyperplasia patients to better inform treatment strategies.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The current 2014 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of mixed epithelial and mesenchymal tumours of the uterus includes categories of carcinosarcoma, adenosarcoma, adenofibroma, adenomyoma ...and atypical polypoid adenomyoma, the last two lesions being composed of an admixture of benign epithelial and mesenchymal elements with a prominent smooth muscle component. In this review, each of these categories of uterine neoplasm is covered with an emphasis on practical tips for the surgical pathologist and new developments. In particular, helpful clues in the distinction between carcinosarcoma and dedifferentiated endometrial carcinoma will be discussed. In addition, salient features to help distinguish between adenofibroma, adenosarcoma, embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma and other mesenchymal neoplasms in the differential diagnosis will be outlined. Finally, a discussion of adenomyoma and its main differential diagnostic considerations will be covered.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
This review of challenging diagnostic issues concerning high-grade endometrial carcinomas is derived from the authors' review of the literature followed by discussions at the Endometrial Cancer ...Workshop sponsored by the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists in 2016. Recommendations presented are evidence-based, insofar as this is possible, given that the levels of evidence are weak or moderate due to small sample sizes and nonuniform diagnostic criteria used in many studies. High-grade endometrioid carcinomas include FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinomas, serous carcinomas, clear cell carcinomas, undifferentiated carcinomas, and carcinosarcomas. FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma is diagnosed when an endometrioid carcinoma exhibits >50% solid architecture (excluding squamous areas), or when an architecturally FIGO grade 2 endometrioid carcinoma exhibits marked cytologic atypia, provided that a glandular variant of serous carcinoma has been excluded. The most useful immunohistochemical studies to make the distinction between these 2 histotypes are p53, p16, DNA mismatch repair proteins, PTEN, and ARID1A. Endometrial clear cell carcinomas must display prototypical architectural and cytologic features for diagnosis. Immunohistochemical stains, including, Napsin A and p504s can be used as ancillary diagnostic tools; p53 expression is aberrant in a minority of clear cell carcinomas. Of note, clear cells are found in all types of high-grade endometrial carcinomas, leading to a tendency to overdiagnose clear cell carcinoma. Undifferentiated carcinoma (which when associated with a component of low-grade endometrioid carcinoma is termed "dedifferentiated carcinoma") is composed of sheets of monotonous, typically dyscohesive cells, which can have a rhabdoid appearance; they often exhibit limited expression of cytokeratins and epithelial membrane antigen, are usually negative for PAX8 and hormone receptors, lack membranous e-cadherin and commonly demonstrate loss of expression of DNA mismatch repair proteins and SWI-SNF chromatin remodeling proteins. Carcinosarcomas must show unequivocal morphologic evidence of malignant epithelial and mesenchymal differentiation.
PDF
