The prognostic value of nuclear grading and the revised FIGO grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma

International Journal of Gynecological Pathology

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 71-74

  Ayhan, A ^a,b   Taskiran, C ^a   Yuce, K ^a   Kucukali, T ^a  

^a HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b NONE   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Endometrial carcinoma; FIGO grade; Nuclear grade; Prognosis

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CYTOARCHITECTURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ENDOMETRIUM CARCINOMA; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT CANCER; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOLID TUMOR; SURVIVAL RATE;

ADULT; AGED; CARCINOMA, ENDOMETRIOID; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 0037214046     PISSN: 02771691     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00004347-200301000-00014     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BP, et al. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 1987;60:2035-41.
2. Announcements. FIGO Stages-1988 Revision. Gynecol Oncol 1989;35:125-7.
3. Pathology Manual of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Philadelphia, PA.
4. Zaino RJ, Kurman RJ, Diana KL, et al. 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;1;75:81-6.
5. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Non-parametric estimation for incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457-81.
6. Mantel N. Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50:163-70.
7. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc 1972;34:187-202.
8. Zaino RJ, Silverberg SG, Norris HJ, et al. The prognostic value of nuclear versus architectural grading in endometrial adenocarcinoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1994;13:29-36.
9. Sorbe B, Risberg B, Frankendal B. DNA ploidy, morphometry, and nuclear grade as prognostic factors in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1990;38:22-7.
10. Takeshima N, Hirai Y, Hasumi K. Prognostic validity of neoplastic cells with notable nuclear atypia in endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:119-23.
11. Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman RJ, et al. Relationship between surgical pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol 1991;40:55-65.
12. Nordstrom B, Strang P, Lindgren A, et al. Carcinoma of the endometrium: Do the nuclear grade and DNA ploidy provide more prognostic information than do the FIGO and WHO classifications? Int J Gynecol Pathol 1996;15:191-201.
13. Christopherson WM, Connelly PJ, Alberhasky RC. Carcinoma of the endometrium: An analysis of prognosticators in patients with favorable subtypes and stage I disease. Cancer 1983;51:1705-9.
14. Mittal KR, Schwartz PE, Barwick KW. Architectural (FIGO) grading, nuclear grading, and other prognostic indicators in stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma with identification of high-risk and low-risk groups. Cancer 1988;1:538-45.
15. Kodama S, Kase H, Tanaka K, et al. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in patients with endometrial cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1996;53:23-30.
16. Cheon HK. Prognosis of endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1969;34:680-4.
17. Austin JH, MacMohan B. Indicators of prognosis in carcinoma of the corpus uteri. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1969;126:1247-52.
18. Nielsen AL, Thomsen HK, Nyholm HCJ. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the revised 1988 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading system of endometrial cancers with special emphasis on nuclear grading. Cancer 1991;68:2303-9.