Abstract
Although the prognostic significance of grade in endometrial cancer is well known, grade 2 cases have not been evaluated separately in most of the previous studies. In this study, we aim to investigate whether the oncologic outcomes of grade 2 endometrioid endometrial carcinomas trend towards grade 1 or 3 tumors. Patients’ records and pathological reports were reviewed retrospectively and eligible patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma were determined and distributed into 3 groups according to their 1988 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grade. Groups’ characteristics and oncologic outcomes were compared. Differences between grades were tested with z-test and adjusted by Bonferroni method. Kaplan–Meier method was performed for the survival analysis. In total, 776 patients of endometrioid endometrial carcinoma were included in this study. Mean follow-up time was 52 ± 14 months. Patients’ mean age was 56.3 ± 10.8 years. Even though grade 2 endometrioid endometrial carcinomas were different from both grade 1 and 3 in terms of the pathological features, survival analyses demonstrated that their oncologic outcomes trended towards grade 1. The grade was determined as an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS). The interobserver reproducibility will be improved among pathologists by combining FIGO grade 1 and 2 endometrioid endometrial carcinomas, while prognosis prediction is not likely to be affected.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Available and can be shared based on reasonable request.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
References
Clarke BA, Gilks CB (2010) Endometrial carcinoma: controversies in histopathological assessment of grade and tumour cell type. J Clin Pathol 63:410–415
Tanaka K, Kobayashi Y, Sugiyama J et al (2017) Histologic grade and peritoneal cytology as prognostic factors in type 1 endometrial cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 22:533–540
Alkushi A, Abdul-Rahman ZH, Lim P et al (2005) Description of a novel system for grading of endometrial carcinoma and comparison with existing grading systems. Am J Surg Pathol 29:295–304
Scholten AN, Creutzberg CL, Noordijk EM, Smit VT (2002) Long-term outcome in endometrial carcinoma favors a two- instead of a three-tiered grading system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:1067–1074
Bilgin T, Ozuysal S, Ozan H (2005) A comparison of three histological grading systems in endometrial cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 272:23–25
Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Aman t Fet al. (2016) ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial Cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26:2–30
Jones HW 3rd (1999) The importance of grading in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 74:1–2
Creasman WT, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P et al (2006) Carcinoma of the corpus uteri. FIGO 26th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological Cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 95(Suppl 1):S105–S143
Binder PS, Mutch DG (2014) Update on prognostic markers for endometrial cancer. Womens Health (Lond) 10:277–288
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 24:1201–1208
Scholten AN, Smit VT, Beerman H et al (2004) Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 100:764–772
Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC et al (2000) Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC study group. Post operative radiation therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet 355:1404–1411
Taylor RR, Zeller J, Lieberman RW, O'Connor DM (1999) An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 74:3–6
Gemer O, Uriev L, Voldarsky M et al (2009) The reproducibility of histological parameters employed in the novel binary grading systems of endometrial cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:247–251
Kapucuoglu N, Bulbul D, Tulunay G, Temel MA (2008) Reproducibility of grading systems for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma and their relation with pathologic prognostic parameters. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18:790–796
Zaino RJ, Silverberg SG, Norris HJ, Bundy BN, Morrow CP, Okagaki T (1994) The prognostic value of nuclear versus architectural grading in endometrial adenocarcinoma: a gynecologic oncology group study. Int J Gynecol Pathol 13:29–36
Acknowledgements
Authors thank Professor Naki Tutuncu for editing the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: UKG, MAV, GK; Methodology: UKG, MAV, GK; Validation: GK; Formal analysis and investigation: GK, UKG, ABG; Writing - original draft; UKG, GK; Writing - review and editing; UKG, MAV, ABG, GK, SP, EB; Funding acquisition: none; Resources, and Supervision: UKG, MAV, ABG, GK, EB, SP.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
None.
Ethics Approval
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate Informed Consent
A written informed consent was taken from all participants in the study.
Consent for Publication
A routinely written consent was taken for academic purposes from all participants.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khatib, G., Gulec, U.K., Guzel, A.B. et al. Prognosis Trend of Grade 2 Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma: Toward Grade 1 or 3?. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 26, 2351–2356 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-020-00836-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-020-00836-w