Objective risk definition for endometrial lesion spectrum: A diagnostic algorithm

Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia, Low-grade: "Much ADO About Nothing"

Atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) is considered a precursor of endometrioid carcinoma. The 2020 World Health Organization (WHO) classification divides endometrial hyperplasia into 2 categories: hyperplasia without atypia and atypical hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN); however, this classification does not consider the degree of nuclear atypia. We graded nuclear atypia for estimating the risk of finding carcinoma at hysterectomy. Also, we investigated genes involved in endometrial carcinogenesis including mismatch repair (MMR) genes and ARID1A, PIK3CA, PTEN, KRAS, and CTNNB1. We reviewed 79 biopsies of AEH from 79 patients who underwent hysterectomy within a 1-year interval. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement of grading nuclear atypia and the relationship between the grade of nuclear atypia at biopsy and the findings at hysterectomy were evaluated. Immunohistochemistry for MMR status was performed in all cases and targeted sequencing in 11. Using low-grade versus high-grade nuclear atypia, κ values ranged from 0.74 to 0.91 (89% to 96%) and from 0.72 to 0.81 (87% to 91%) for the intraobserver and the interobserver agreement, respectively. The degree of nuclear atypia at biopsy was highly predictive of the findings at hysterectomy (P=1.6×10-15). Of 53 patients with low-grade AEH, none had carcinoma at hysterectomy, whereas 6 (6/26; 23%) with high-grade AEH in the biopsy also had high-grade AEH in the uterus and 16 (16/26; 61%) had FIGO grade 1 carcinoma. MMR deficiency was found in 3 of the 79 patients. None of the genes showed a mutational load significantly associated with the degree of nuclear atypia. In summary, our data show high reproducibility within and between observers for the diagnosis of low-grade and high-grade AEH. Most cases of AEH had low-grade nuclear atypia and neither high-grade AEH nor carcinoma was encountered in the corresponding hysterectomy specimens.

Loss of PTEN expression as diagnostic marker of endometrial precancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endometrial hyperplasia may be either a benign proliferation or a premalignant lesion. In order to differentiate these two conditions, two possible histologic classifications can be used: the World Health Organization (WHO) classification and the endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) classification. The 2017 European Society of Gynaecological Oncology guidelines recommend the use of immunohistochemistry for tumor suppressor protein phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) to improve the differential diagnosis. Nonetheless, its diagnostic accuracy has never been defined. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of immunohistochemistry for PTEN in the differential diagnosis between benign and premalignant endometrial hyperplasia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from their inception to May 2018 for studies assessing immunohistochemical expression of PTEN in endometrial hyperplasia specimens. PTEN status ("loss" or "presence") was the index test; histological diagnosis ("precancer" or "benign") was the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) on summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated (95% CI), with a subgroup analysis based on the histologic classification adopted (WHO vs EIN).

RESULTS

Twenty-seven observational studies with 1736 cases of endometrial hyperplasia were included. Pooled estimates showed low diagnostic accuracy: sensitivity 54% (95% CI 50%-59%), specificity 66% (63%-69%), LR+ 1.55 (1.29-1.87), LR- 0.72 (0.62-0.83), DOR 3.56 (2.02-6.28), AUC 0.657. When the WHO subgroup was compared with the EIN subgroup, higher accuracy (AUC 0.694 vs. 0.621), and higher heterogeneity in all analyses, were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunohistochemistry for PTEN showed low diagnostic usefulness in the differential diagnosis between benign and premalignant endometrial hyperplasia. In the absence of further evidence, the recommendation about its use should be reconsidered.