ENDOMETRİAL ADENOKARSİNOMLARIN KÜRETAJ VE HİSTEREKTOMİ SPESMENLERİNDE FIGO TÜMÖR DİFERANSİASYON DERECESİ UYUMU

Abstract

Amaç: Endometrial adenokarsinomlarda;küretaj ve histerektomi spesmenlerinin ‘International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics’(FIGO) derecelendirme uyumunu değerlendirmeyi amaçladık. Yöntem ve Bulgular: Sözü edilen yıllar arasında küretaj ve histerektomi raporlarına ulaşılan 48 hastanın patoloji raporları derecelendirme açısından incelendi. Uyum; derece 1 için %70, derece 2 için %70, derece 3 için %100 ve bütün olgular için %77 olarak bulundu.Derece 3 tümörlerde uyum, derece 1 ve 2 ye göre belirgin olarak yüksekti. Sonuç: Bazen endometrial adenokarsinomların diferansiasyon dereceleri küretaj materyali sonrası histerektomi materyalinde değişiklik gösterebilmektedir. Bu durum küretaj materyalinde özellikle derece 1 ve 2 tanısı alan hastaların yönetiminde karışıklık yaratabilir.

Keywords

• FIGO derecesi, Endometrial adenokarsinom

References

1. 1. Christophersen WM, Connelly PJ Alberhasky RC.Carcinoma of the endometrium:V. An analysis of prognosticators in patients with favorable subtypes and stage I disease.Cancer1983;51:1705-1709.
2. 2. Jones III WH. The importance of grading in endometrial cancer.Gynecol Oncol 1999 ; 74:1-2.
3. 3. Zaino RJ, Kurman RJ,Diana KL, Morrow CP.The utility of the revised International Federation of Gynecologic and Obstetrics histologic grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma using a defined nuclear grading system. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 1995; 75:81-86.
4. 4. Nedergaard L, Jacobsen M, Andersen JE. Interobserver agreement for tumour type, grade of differentiation and stage in endometrial carcinomas. Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Immunologica Scand 1995;103:511-518 (Abs).
5. 5. Nielsen AL, Thomsen HK, Nyholm HC. 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. Cancer1991; 68:2303-2309.
6. 6. Mitchard J, Hirschowitz L.Concordance of FIGO grade of endometrial adenocarcinomas in biopsy and hysterectomy specimens. Histopathology 2003 ;42:372- 378.
7. 7. Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones H III, Ngan HYS, Pecorelli S. FIGO staging classifications and the clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2000; 70:209-262 .
8. 8. Zaino RJ, Kurman RJ,Diana KL, Morrow CP.Pathologic models to predict outcome for woman with endometrial adenocarcinoma : The importance of the distinction between surgical stage and clinical stage-a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 1997; 79:1115-1121.

9. 9. Abeler VM, Kjorstad K, Berle E. Carcinoma of the endometrium in Norway:a histopathological and prognostic survey of a total population. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1992;2:9-22.
10. 10. Greven KM, Lanciano RM, Corn B, Case D, Randall ME. Pathologic stage III endometrial carcinoma. Prognostic factors and patterns of recurrence. Cancer 1993; 71:3697-3702.
11. 11. Ronnet BM, Zaino RJ, Ellenson LH, Kurman RJ. Endometrial carcinoma. In: Kurman RJ, ed. Blaustein’s Pathology of the Female Genital Tract. 5th ed. New York:Springer-Verlag, 2002:501-615.
12. 12. Petersen RW, Quinlivan JA, Casper GR, Nicklin JL. Endometrial adenocarcinoma-presenting pathology is a poor guide to surgical management. Australia NZ J. Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 40:191-194 (Abs).
13. 13. Oakly G, Nahhas WA.Endometrial adenocarcinoma: therapeutic impact of preoperative histopathologic histopathologic examination of endometrial tissue. Eur J Gynaecol Obstet 1989 ;10: 255-260.
14. 14. Daniel AG, PetersWA. Accuracy of office and operating room curettage in grading of endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gyneco1988 ;l 71:612-614.
15. 15. Larson DM, Johnson KK, Broste SK, Krawisz BR,Kresl JJ. Comparison of D&C and office endmetrial biopsy in predicting final histopathologic grade in endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86:38-42.
16. 16. Obermair A, Geramou M, Gücer F, et al. Endometrial cancer:accuracy of the finding of a well differentiated tumor at dilation and curettage compared to the findings at subsequent hysterectomy .Int J Gynecol Cancer 1999; 9:383-386.