Background: Endometrial clear cell carcinoma (ECCC) is a rare variant of endometrial cancer with an unfavorable prognosis. The aim of this study was to determine the relationships, if any, between preoperative serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) levels, the last Papanicolaou (Pap) smear, the results of endometrial biopsy and tumor histology, and disease-stage according to permanent histopathology. Materials and Methods: The data of 26 women with ECCC were collected from their medical records to compare demographics, preoperative serum CA-125 levels, Pap test results, histological diagnosis of the endometrial biopsy, and tumor histology, as well as the disease stage according to permanent histopathology. Results: The mean age at diagnosis was 64.0 years. There were 17 (65.3%) women with pure ECCC and 8 (30.7%) women with a mixed histology. Stage III-IV disease was diagnosed in 12 (46.2%) women and occurred more frequently in pure ECCC (n = 11, 91.7%). CA-125 values were significantly higher in advanced stage disease. Cytological evaluation indicated the presence of 71.4% (10/14) cytological abnormalities in pure ECCC. The overall sensitivity of endometrial sampling for the detection of malignancy was 92.3% (24/26), whereas the accurate diagnosis of ECCC was only 34.7% (8/23) with the Pipelle sampler. Conclusion: Pap test abnormalities are frequent in ECCC. Although it is less accurate in the diagnosis of ECCC than in the detection of malignancy, endometrial sampling is still the main procedure for the diagnosis of ECCC. Higher preoperative CA-125 concentrations imply the presence of advanced stage ECCC.

Keywords:
Clear cell carcinoma, CA-125, Papanicolaou smear, Endometrial sampling
1.
Hasegawa K, Nagao S, Yasuda M, Millan D, Viswanathan AN, Glasspool RM, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M, Covens A, Lorusso D, Kurzeder C, Kim JW, Gladieff L, Bryce J, Friedlander M, Fujiwara K: Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus review for clear cell carcinoma of the uterine corpus and cervix. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014;24:S90-95.
2.
Scarfone G, Secomandi R, Parazzini F, Vigano R, Mangili G, Frigerio L, Villa A, Tateo S, Ricci E, Bolis G: Clear cell and papillary serous endometrial carcinomas: survival in a series of 128 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013;287:351-356.
3.
Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF: The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. 1941. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:211-224.
4.
Marques JP, Costa LB, Pinto AP, Lima AF, Duarte ME, Barbosa AP, Medeiros PL: Atypical glandular cells and cervical cancer: systematic review. Rev Assoc Med Bras 2011;57:234-238.
5.
Larson DM, Johnson KK, Reyes CN Jr, Broste SK: Prognostic significance of malignant cervical cytology in patients with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:399-403.
6.
Guy MS, Cheng G, Post MD, Spillman MA, Behbakht K, Davidson S, Sheeder J, Guntupalli SR: Outcomes of women with atypical glandular cells on preoperative cytology and endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014;24:266-271.
7.
Visser NC, Bulten J, van der Wurff AA, Boss EA, Bronkhorst CM, Feijen HW, Haartsen JE, van Herk HA, de Kievit IM, Klinkhamer PJ, Pijlman BM, Snijders MP, Vandenput I, Vos MC, de Wit PE, van de Poll-Franse LV, Massuger LF, Pijnenborg JM: PIpelle Prospective ENDOmetrial carcinoma (PIPENDO) study, pre-operative recognition of high risk endometrial carcinoma: a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMC Cancer 2015;15:487.
8.
Chao A, Tang YH, Lai CH, Chang CJ, Chang SC, Wu TI, Hsueh S, Wang CJ, Chou HH, Chang TC: Potential of an age-stratified CA125 cut-off value to improve the prognostic classification of patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2013;129:500-504.
9.
Brassard L, Bessette P: Value of gynecological cytology and CA 125 level for the prediction of extrauterine malignancy in endometrial cancer]. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2012;34:657-663.
10.
Al-Wahab ZR, Kumar S, Mutch DG, Dowdy SC, Hensley SA, Wang Y, Mahdi H, Ali-Fehmi R, Morris RT, Elshaikh M, Munkarah AR: Racial disparities in uterine clear cell carcinoma: a multi-institution study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014;24:541-548.
11.
Kinoshita Y, Takasu K, Adachi Y, Yuri T, Ikuta A, Shikata N: Endometrial clear cell adenocarcinoma diagnosed by endometrial cytological examination: two cases report. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:200-203.
12.
Skaznik-Wikiel ME, Ueda SM, Frasure HE, Rose PG, Fleury A, Grumbine FC, Fader AN: Abnormal cervical cytology in the diagnosis of uterine papillary serous carcinoma: earlier detection of a poor prognostic cancer subtype? Acta Cytol 2011;55:255-260.
13.
Huang GS, Gebb JS, Einstein MH, Shahabi S, Novetsky AP, Goldberg GL: Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling for the detection of high-grade endometrial tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:243.e1-5.
14.
Sany O, Singh K, Jha S: Correlation between preoperative endometrial sampling and final endometrial cancer histology. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2012;33:142-144.
15.
Ventura KC, Popiolek D, Mittal K: Endometrial adenocarcinoma in situ in complex atypical hyperplasia: correlation with findings in subsequent hysterectomy specimen. Int J Surg Pathol 2004;12:225-230.
16.
Ahmed QF, Gattoc L, Al-Wahab Z, Abdulfatah E, Ruterbusch JJ, Cote M, Bandyopadhyay S, Morris RT, Ali-Fehmi R: Vanishing endometrial cancer in hysterectomy specimens: a myth or a fact. Am J Surg Pathol 2015;39:221-216.
17.
Yasuda M: Immunohistochemical characterization of endometrial carcinomas: endometrioid, serous and clear cell adenocarcinomas in association with genetic analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014;40:2167-2176.
18.
Park ST, Song MJ, Lee CW, Lee AW, Hur SY, Park JS: Synchronous clear cell adenocarcinoma of the cervix and endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2011;32:573-575.
© 2016 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg
2016
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.