Significant variation in the assessment of cervical involvement in endometrial carcinoma: An interobserver variation study

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 289-294

  McCluggage, W Glenn ^a   Hirschowitz, Lynn ^b   Wilson, Godfrey E ^c   Oliva, Esther ^d   Soslow, Robert A ^e   Zaino, Richard J ^f  

^a ROYAL GROUP OF HOSPITALS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b BIRMINGHAM WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^d MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^f PENN STATE MILTON S HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

cervical involvement; endometrial carcinoma; interobserver variation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CLASSIFICATION; ENDOMETRIOID CARCINOMA; ENDOMETRIUM TUMOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; UTERINE CERVIX;

CARCINOMA, ENDOMETRIOID; CERVIX UTERI; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; NEOPLASM STAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 79251577132     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182073ac0     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ayhan A, Taskiran C, Celik C, et al. The long-term survival of women with surgical stage II endometrioid type endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93:9-13.
2. Baak JP, Langley FA, Talerman A, et al. Interpathologist and intrapathologist disagreement in ovarian tumor grading and typing. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1986;8:354-357.
3. Bergeron C, Nogales FF, Masseroli M, et al. A multicentric European study testing the reproducibility of the WHO classification of endometrial hyperplasia with a proposal of a simplified working classification for biopsy and curettage specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:1102-1108.
4. Bertelsen K, Holund B, Andersen E. Reproducibility and prognostic value of histologic type and grade in early epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1993;3:72-79.
5. Cramer SF, Roth LM, Ulbright TM, et al. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the World Health Organization classification of common ovarian cancers: with emphasis on methodology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1987;111:819-829.
6. Eltabbakh GH, Moore AD. Survival of women with surgical stage II endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;74:80-85.
7. Fanning J, Alvarez PM, Tukada Y, et al. Prognostic significance of the extent of cervical involvement by endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1991;40:46-47.
8. Garg K, Leitao MM Jr, Wynveen CA, et al. p53 overexpression in morphologically ambiguous endometrial carcinomas correlates with adverse clinical outcomes. Mod Pathol. 2010;23:80-92.
9. Jobsen JJ, Schutter EM, Meerwaldt JH, et al. Treatment results in women with clinical stage I and pathologic stage II endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2001;11:49-53.
10. Jordan LB, Al-Nafussi A. Clinicopathological study of the pattern and significance of cervical involvement in cases of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2002;12:42-48.
11. Kalyanasundaram K, Ganesan R, Perunovic B, et al. Diffusely infiltrating endometrial carcinomas with no stromal response: report of a series, including cases with cervical and ovarian involvement and emphasis on the potential for misdiagnosis. Int J Surg Pathol. 2010;18:138-143.
12. Kobel M, Kalloger SE, Baker PM, et al. Diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma cell type is highly reproducible: a transcanadian study. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:984-993.
13. McCluggage WG. My approach to and thoughts on the typing of ovarian carcinomas. J Clin Pathol. 2008;61:152-163.
14. McCluggage WG. Problematic areas in the reporting of endometrial carcinomas in hysterectomy specimens. Diagn Histopathol. 2009; 15:571-581.
15. McCluggage WG, Bharucha H, Caughley LC, et al. Inter-observer variation in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens: comparison of grading systems. J Clin Pathol. 1996;49: 833-835.
16. McCluggage WG, Walsh MY, Thornton CM, et al. Inter- and intra-observer variation in the histopathological reporting of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions using a modified Bethesda grading system. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;105:206-210.
17. Nayar NG, Cross PA, Bulmer JN, et al. Comparison of examination of the entire uterine cervix with routine cervical sampling in hysterectomy specimens from women with endometrial cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2008;61:621-622.
18. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix and endometrium. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;105:103-104.
19. Scott M, Lyness RW, McCluggage WG. Atypical reactive proliferation of endocervix: a common lesion associated with endome-trial carcinoma and likely related to prior endometrial sampling. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:470-474.
20. Skov BG, Broholm H, Engel U, et al. Comparison of the reproducibility of the WHO classifications of 1975 and 1994 of endometrial hyperplasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1997;16:33-37.
21. Tambouret R, Clement PB, Young RH. Endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma with a deceptive pattern of spread to the uterine cervix: a manifestation of stage IIb endometrial carcinoma liable to be misinterpreted as an independent carcinoma or a benign lesion. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1080-1088.