J Gynecol Oncol.  2010 Jun;21(2):97-101. 10.3802/jgo.2010.21.2.97.

Comparison of WHO and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classifications in predicting the presence of coexistent malignancy in endometrial hyperplasia

• Salman MC
• Usubutun A
• Boynukalin K
• Yuce K

• KMID: 2009578
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2010.21.2.97

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The most commonly used classification system for endometrial hyperplasia is the World Health Organization system which is based on subjective criteria. Another classification system is endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) system which uses diagnostic criteria including cytological demarcation, crowded gland architecture, minimum size of 1 mm, and careful exclusion of mimics, and aims to identify a precancer or cancer. The objective of this study was to compare the two classification systems in terms of predicting the presence of a coexistent cancer in surgically treated patients.
METHODS
Biopsy and hysterectomy specimens of 49 women who were subjected to surgery with a preoperative diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) according to the WHO system were re-evaluated retrospectively by using EIN system.
RESULTS
Among the 49 patients, 69.4% had complex atypical EH and 75.5% had EIN at biopsy specimens. EIN was detected in 94.1% of complex atypical EH, and 41.7% of non-atypical EH. Nine women (18.4%) had endometrial cancer. Among women with cancer, all had complex atypical EH or EIN. The rate of coexistent endometrial cancer was 26.5% in women with complex atypical EH and 24.3% in women with EIN.
CONCLUSION
Diagnoses of atypical or complex atypical EH and EIN had similar sensitivities and negative predictive values in predicting the coexistent endometrial cancer. Either of these two classification systems may be used safely when an experienced pathologist is available. However, use of the objective EIN system may be preferred whenever possible to prevent diagnostic errors in centers where an experienced pathologist is not available.

Keyword

Endometrial hyperplasia; Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia; Endometrial cancer; Coexistent cancer

MeSH Terms

Biopsy
Diagnostic Errors
Endometrial Hyperplasia
Endometrial Neoplasms
Female
Humans
Hysterectomy
Retrospective Studies
World Health Organization

Reference

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007. 57:43–66.

2. Cavanagh D, Fiorica JV, Hoffman MS, Durfee J, Nicosia SV. Adenocarcinoma of the endometrium: an institutional review. Cancer Control. 1999. 6:354–360.

3. Bokhman JV. Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1983. 15:10–17.

4. Horn LC, Meinel A, Handzel R, Einenkel J. Histopathology of endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma: an update. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2007. 11:297–311.

5. Silverberg SG, Mutter GL, Kurman RJ, Kubik-Huch RA, Nogales F, Tavassoli FA. Tavassoli FA, Stratton MR, editors. Tumors of the uterine corpus: epithelial tumors and related lesions. WHO classification of tumors: pathology and genetics of tumors of the breast and female genital organs. 2003. Lyon: IARC Press;221–232.

6. Kurman RJ, Kaminski PF, Norris HJ. The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia: a long-term study of "untreated" hyperplasia in 170 patients. Cancer. 1985. 56:403–412.

7. Widra EA, Dunton CJ, McHugh M, Palazzo JP. Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1995. 5:233–235.

8. Clark TJ, Neelakantan D, Gupta JK. The management of endometrial hyperplasia: an evaluation of current practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006. 125:259–264.

9. Skov BG, Broholm H, Engel U, Franzmann MB, Nielsen AL, Lauritzen AF, 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.

10. Bergeron C, Nogales FF, Masseroli M, Abeler V, Duvillard P, Muller-Holzner E, 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.

11. Usubutun A, Ertoy D, Ozkaya O, Altinok G, Kucukali T. Search for problem areas in endometrial biopsies to achieve quality assurance. Pathol Res Pract. 2000. 196:625–626.

12. Mutter GL. The Endometrial Collaborative Group. Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN): will it bring order to chaos? Gynecol Oncol. 2000. 76:287–290.

13. Hecht JL, Ince TA, Baak JP, Baker HE, Ogden MW, Mutter GL. Prediction of endometrial carcinoma by subjective endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis. Mod Pathol. 2005. 18:324–330.

14. Montgomery BE, Daum GS, Dunton CJ. Endometrial hyperplasia: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004. 59:368–378.

15. Gultekin M, Diribas K, Dursun P, Ayhan A. Current management of endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN). Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2009. 30:396–401.

16. Bilgin T, Ozuysal S, Ozan H, Atakan T. Coexisting endometrial cancer in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004. 30:205–209.

17. Zaino RJ, Kauderer J, Trimble CL, Silverberg SG, Curtin JP, Lim PC, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2006. 106:804–811.

18. Mutter GL, Chaponot ML, Fletcher JA. A polymerase chain reaction assay for non-random X chromosome inactivation identifies monoclonal endometrial cancers and precancers. Am J Pathol. 1995. 146:501–508.

19. Mutter GL, Boynton KA, Faquin WC, Ruiz RE, Jovanovic AS. Allelotype mapping of unstable microsatellites establishes direct lineage continuity between endometrial precancers and cancer. Cancer Res. 1996. 56:4483–4486.

20. Jovanovic AS, Boynton KA, Mutter GL. Uteri of women with endometrial carcinoma contain a histopathological spectrum of monoclonal putative precancers, some with microsatellite instability. Cancer Res. 1996. 56:1917–1921.

21. Baak JP, Mutter GL. EIN and WHO94. J Clin Pathol. 2005. 58:1–6.

22. Mutter GL, Baak JP, Crum CP, Richart RM, Ferenczy A, Faquin WC. Endometrial precancer diagnosis by histopathology, clonal analysis, and computerized morphometry. J Pathol. 2000. 190:462–469.

23. Lacey JV Jr, Ioffe OB, Ronnett BM, Rush BB, Richesson DA, Chatterjee N, et al. Endometrial carcinoma risk among women diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia: the 34-year experience in a large health plan. Br J Cancer. 2008. 98:45–53.

24. Baak JP, Mutter GL, Robboy S, van Diest PJ, Uyterlinde AM, Orbo A, et al. The molecular genetics and morphometry-based endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classification system predicts disease progression in endometrial hyperplasia more accurately than the 1994 World Health Organization classification system. Cancer. 2005. 103:2304–2312.

25. Lacey JV Jr, Mutter GL, Nucci MR, Ronnett BM, Ioffe OB, Rush BB, et al. Risk of subsequent endometrial carcinoma associated with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classification of endometrial biopsies. Cancer. 2008. 113:2073–2081.