Objective: Histopathological variation has been demonstrated in grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinomas. We attempted to evaluate the clinicopathological features of grade 3 tumors by endometrial cytological features using a scoring system. Study Design: Twenty-one endometrial cytological samples were evaluated using 5 cytological features: rates of cluster formation in tumor cells; nuclear pleomorphism; nuclear dimension; size of nucleoli, and chromatin structure and distribution. The relationships between cytological scores and clinicopathological factors or prognosis were investigated. Results: The median cytological score was 6 (range 4-14); therefore, samples with scores of 4-5 were defined as having low scores, while those with scores of 6-14 were defined as high scores. The accuracy of the cytological diagnosis for grade 3 tumors in the high score group (8/10 patients, 80.0%) was significantly higher than that of the low score group (2/11 patients, 18.2%; p = 0.009). Significant relationships between cytological scores and lymph node metastases or positive peritoneal cytology were observed (p = 0.03 and 0.035, respectively). The overall survival rate was significantly worse in the high score group (30.0%) than the low score group (88.9%; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinomas varied in cytological features; according to the scoring system used, high scores were associated with worse clinicopathological factors and poorer prognosis than low scores.

Keywords:
Endometrial carcinoma, Poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma, Grade 3 tumor, Endometrial cytology, Prognosis
1.
Bokhman JV: Two pathologic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1983;15:10-17.
2.
Setiawan VW, Yang HP, Pike MC, et al: Type I and II endometrial cancers: have they different risk factors? J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2607-2618.
3.
Voss MA, Ganesan R, Ludeman L, et al: Should grade 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma be considered a type 2 cancer - a clinical and pathological evaluation. Gynecol Oncol 2012;124:15-20.
4.
Zannoni GF, Vellone VG, Arena V, et al: Does high-grade endometrioid carcinoma (grade 3 FIGO) belong to type I or type II endometrial cancer? A clinical-pathological and immunohistochemical study. Virchows Arch 2010;457:27-34.
5.
Clarke BA, Gilks CB: Endometrial carcinoma: controversies in histopathological assessment of grade and tumour cell type. J Clin Pathol 2010;63:410-415.
6.
Alvarez T, Miller E, Duska L, Oliva E: Molecular profile of grade 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma: is it a type I or type II endometrial carcinoma? Am J Surg Pathol 2012;36:753-761.
7.
Zaino RJ, Kurman RJ, Diana KL, Morrow CP: The utility of the revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics histologic grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma using a defined nuclear grading system. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 1995;75:81-86.
8.
Mitchard J, Hirschowitz L: Concordance of FIGO grade of endometrial adenocarcinoma adenocarcinomas in biopsy and hysterectomy specimens. Histopathology 2003;42:372-378.
9.
Klemi PJ, Alanen KA, Salmi T: Detection of malignancy in endometrium by brush sampling in 1,042 symptomatic patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1995;5:222-225.
10.
Papaefthimiou M, Symiakaki H, Mentzelopoulou P, et al: The role of liquid-based cytology associated with curettage in the investigation of endometrial lesions from postmenopausal women. Cytopathology 2005;16:32-39.
11.
Papaefthimiou M, Symiakaki H, Mentzelopoulou P, et al: Study on the morphology and reproducibility of the diagnosis of endometrial lesions utilizing liquid-based cytology. Cancer 2005;105:56-64.
12.
Buccoliero AM, Castiglione F, Gheri CF, et al: Liquid-based endometrial cytology: its possible value in postmenopausal asymptomatic women. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17:182-187.
13.
Nishimura Y, Watanabe J, Jobo T, Hattori M, Arai T, Kuramoto H: Cytologic scoring of endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Cancer 2005;105:8-12.
14.
Nambu M, Matsumoto S, Takeshita M, Nabeshima K, Iwashita A: A multivariate statistical study to obtain effective criteria to detect well-differentiated adenocarcinoma in endometrial cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:701-707.
15.
Yanoh K, Hirai Y, Sakamoto A, Aoki D, et al: New terminology for intrauterine endometrial samples: a group study by the Japanese Society of Clinical Cytology. Acta Cytol 2012;56:233-241.
16.
Bartosch C, Manuel Lopes J, Oliva E: Endometrial carcinomas: a review emphasizing overlapping and distinctive morphological and immunohistochemical features. Adv Anat Pathol 2011;18:415-437.
17.
Al-Loh S, Al-Hussaini M: Undifferentiated endometrial carcinoma: a diagnosis frequently overlooked. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013;137:438-442.
18.
Taylor RR, Zeller J, Lieberman RW, O'Connor DM: An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1999;74:3-6.
19.
Lax SF, Kurman RJ, Pizer ES, Wu L, Ronnett BM: A binary architectural grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma has superior reproducibility compared with FIGO grading and identifies subsets of advance-stage tumors with favorable and unfavorable prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24:1201-1208.
20.
Alkushi A, Abdul-Rahman ZH, Lim P, et al: Description of a novel system for grading of endometrial carcinoma and comparison with existing grading systems. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:295-304.
21.
Nakagawa-Okamura C, Sato S, Tsuji I, et al: Effectiveness of mass screening for endometrial cancer. Acta Cytol 2002;46:277-283.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.