Advertisement

Prognostic significance of solid growth in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma

  • Serra AkarEmail author
  • Zeliha Esin Çelik
  • Sıddıka Fındık
  • Tolgay Tuyan İlhan
  • Fedi Ercan
  • Çetin Çelik
Original Article
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Endometrioid endometrial cancer is the most common histological subtype of endometrial adenocarcinoma. In the FIGO grading scheme, both architectural and nuclear grade are taken into consideration. However, the specific impact of solid growth alone on endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma outcome is not well documented. We sought to assess the degree of impact of solid growth on lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), myometrial invasion, tumor size, FIGO stage, lymph node metastasis (LNM), relapse-free survival (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS).

Methods

Paraffin blocks of 269 patients treated for endometrioid endometrial cancer were retrospectively analyzed with morphometry for solid growth percentages.

Results

A statistically significant cut-off value of 1% solid growth was found for predicting LNM and advanced stage (III or IV), myometrial invasion and LVSI (p < 0.001) and a cut-off value of 8% was found for predicting adverse survival outcome (p < 0.001). The mean DSS was significantly higher in patients with < 6% solid growth compared to patients with 6–50%, 51–75% and > 75% solid growth (p < 0.001). Although, the mean RFS and DSS were lowest in patients with 51–75% solid growth, this did not reach statistical significance in comparison to 6–50% and > 75% (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Although > 75% solid growth was most significantly associated with many of the adverse prognostic factors, this subset did not provide prognostic superiority in predicting adverse survival when compared to subsets within 6–75% solid growth. In conclusion, although no statistically significant difference in survival was found among subdivisions of architectural grades 2 and 3, solid growth, especially ≥ 8%, appeared to be an independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with early-stage endometrioid endometrial cancer.

Keywords

Endometrial cancer Solid growth Architectural grade Prognosis Survival 

Notes

Author contributions

SA: data gathering, data analysis, writing of manuscript. EÇ: data gathering, data analysis. SF: data gathering, data analysis. TTİ: data gathering. FE: data gathering. ÇÇ: supervision, contributed to the writing of manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

S. Akar declares no conflict of interest. E. Çelik declares no conflict of interest. S. Fındık declares no conflict of interest. T. T. İlhan declares no conflict of interest. F. Ercan declares no conflict of interest. Ç. Çelik declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. This was a retrospective study of paraffin-blocks and was approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee.

References

  1. 1.
    WHO Classification of tumours of the female reproductive organs, 4, Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH (eds) (2014) World Health Organization. pp 126, 150Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67:7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shepherd JH (1989) Revised FIGO staging for gynaecological cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 96:889–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pecorelli S (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105:103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scholten AN, Smit VT, Beerman H et al (2004) Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 100(4):764–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lax SF, Kurman RJ, Pizer ES et al (2000) 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 24(9):1201–1208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor RR, Zeller J, Lieberman RW et al (1999) An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 74(1):3–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DiSaia PJ, Creasman WT, Boronow RC et al (1985) Risk factors and recurrent patterns in Stage I endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151(8):1009–1015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alm P, Gudmundsson T, Mårtensson R et al (1995) Identification of small areas of solid growth has a strong prognostic impact in differentiated endometrial carcinomas. A histopathologic and morphometric study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 5(2):87–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meng B, Hoang LN, McIntyre JB et al (2014) POLE exonuclease domain mutation predicts long progression-free survival in grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium. Gynecol Oncol 134(1):15–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.05.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Billingsley CC, Cohn DE, Mutch DG et al (2016) Prognostic significance of POLE exonuclease domain mutations in high-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer on survival and recurrence: a subanalysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26(5):933–938.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000681 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySelcuk University Hospital, Selcuk University Medical SchoolKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of PathologySelcuk University HospitalKonyaTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Pathology, Meram Faculty of MedicineNecmettin Erbakan UniversityKonyaTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meram Faculty of MedicineNecmettin Erbakan UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations