Preoperative and intraoperative assessment of myometrial invasion in patients with FIGO stage I non-endometrioid endometrial carcinoma—a large-scale, multi-center, and retrospective study
-
Published:2023-01-25
Issue:1
Volume:18
Page:
-
ISSN:1746-1596
-
Container-title:Diagnostic Pathology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Diagn Pathol
Author:
Yang Xiaohang,Yin Jingjing,Fu Yu,Shen Yuanming,Zhang Chuyao,Yao Shuzhong,Xu Congjian,Xia Min,Lou Ge,Liu Jihong,Lin Bei,Wang Jianliu,Zhao Weidong,Zhang Jieqing,Cheng Wenjun,Guo Hongyan,Guo Ruixia,Xue Fengxia,Wang Xipeng,Han Lili,Li Xiaomao,Zhang Ping,Zhao Jianguo,Li Wenting,Dou Yingyu,Wang Zizhuo,Liu Jingbo,Li Kezhen,Chen Gang,Sun Chaoyang,Sun Pengming,Lu Weiguo,Yao Qin
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Myometrial invasion is a prognostic factor for lymph node metastases and decreased survival in non-endometrioid endometrial carcinoma patients. Herein, we explored the mode of myometrial invasion diagnosis in FIGO stage I non-endometrioid carcinoma and evaluated the differences in diagnostic efficiency among intraoperative frozen section (IFS), intraoperative gross examination (IGE), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) in clinical practice. Finally, we suggested which test should be routinely performed.
Method
This was a historical cohort study nationwide with 30 centers in China between January 2000 and December 2019. Clinical data, including age, histology, method of myometrial invasion evaluation (MRI, CT, IGE, and IFS), and final diagnosis of postoperative paraffin sections, were collected from 490 non-endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (serous, clear cell, undifferentiated, mixed carcinoma, and carcinosarcoma) women in FIGO stage I.
Results
Among the 490 patients, 89.59% presented myometrial invasion. The methods reported for myometrial invasion assessment were IFS in 23.47%, IGE in 69.59%, MRI in 37.96%, and CT in 10.20% of cases. The highest concordance was detected between IFS and postoperative paraffin sections (Kappa = 0.631, accuracy = 93.04%), followed by IGE (Kappa = 0.303, accuracy = 82.40%), MRI (Kappa = 0.131, accuracy = 69.35%), and CT (Kappa = 0.118, accuracy = 50.00%). A stable diagnostic agreement between IFS and the final results was also found through the years (2000–2012: Kappa = 0.776; 2013–2014: Kappa = 0.625; 2015–2016: Kappa = 0.545; 2017–2019: Kappa = 0.652).
Conclusion
In China, the assessment of myometrial invasion in non-endometrioid endometrial carcinoma is often performed via IGE, but the reliability is relatively low in contrast to IFS. In clinical practice, IFS is a reliable method that can help accurately assess myometrial invasion and intraoperative decision-making (lymph node dissection or not). Hence, it should be routinely performed in non-endometrioid endometrial carcinoma patients.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Medicine,Histology,Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Reference32 articles.
1. Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, Timmerman D, Van Limbergen E, Vergote I. Endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2005;366(9484):491–505. 2. Mandato VD, Torricelli F, Mastrofilippo V, Palicelli A, Ciarlini G, Pirillo D, et al. Accuracy of preoperative endometrial biopsy and intraoperative frozen section in predicting the final pathological diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Surg Oncol. 2020;35:229–35. 3. Jonsdottir B, Marcickiewicz J, Borgfeldt C, Bjurberg M, Dahm-Kahler P, Floter-Radestad A, et al. Preoperative and intraoperative assessment of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer-A Swedish Gynecologic Cancer Group (SweGCG) study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(8):1526–33. 4. Concin N, Creutzberg CL, Vergote I, Cibula D, Mirza MR, Marnitz S, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2021;478(2):153–90. 5. Alcazar JL, Dominguez-Piriz J, Juez L, Caparros M, Jurado M. Intraoperative gross examination and intraoperative frozen section in patients with endometrial cancer for detecting deep myometrial invasion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(2):407–15.
|
|