Atypical mucinous glandular proliferations in endometrial samplings: follow-up and other clinicopathological findings in 41 cases

Data Set for the Reporting of Endometrial Cancer: Recommendations From the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)

Endometrial cancer is one of the most common cancers among women. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) developed a standardized endometrial cancer data set in 2011, which provided detailed recommendations for the reporting of resection specimens of these neoplasms. A new data set has been developed, which incorporates the updated 2020 World Health Organization Classification of Female Genital Tumors, the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) molecular classification of endometrial cancers, and other major advances in endometrial cancer reporting, all of which necessitated a major revision of the data set. This updated data set has been produced by a panel of expert pathologists and an expert clinician and has been subject to international open consultation. The data set includes core elements which are unanimously agreed upon as essential for cancer diagnosis, clinical management, staging, or prognosis and noncore elements which are clinically important, but not essential. Explanatory notes are provided for each element. Adoption of this updated data set will result in improvements in endometrial cancer patient care.

Mucinous Proliferations of the Uterine Corpus: Comprehensive Appraisal of an Evolving Spectrum of Neoplasms

A variety of endometrial lesions may contain mucinous cells. Herein, the author reviews the literature on the classification and clinicopathologic significance of uterine corpus proliferations with a significant mucinous component, assesses the 2020 World Health Organization classification of such lesions, and presents a diagnostic framework. The key epithelial mucinous lesions include mucinous metaplasia, atypical mucinous glandular proliferation and mucinous carcinoma. Each of these categories are classifiable into "usual" and gastrointestinal subtypes, the latter being indicative of intestinal (presence of goblet cells) and/or gastric-type (abundant, pale eosinophilic or clear cytoplasm and well-defined cell borders) morphology. It has been proposed that at least focal expression of gastrointestinal immunohistochemical markers be required for all gastrointestinal type lesions, and for gastrointestinal type atypical mucinous glandular proliferation and carcinoma, minimality or absence of estrogen receptor expression, and the absence of an endometrioid component. Mucinous carcinomas of the usual type, in which >50% of the tumor is comprised of a mucinous component, are the most common. Morphologic subtypes include mucinous carcinoma with microglandular features and mucinous carcinoma with signet rings (signet ring carcinoma). Endometrioid carcinomas with a less than a 50% mucinous component are classified as endometrioid carcinoma with mucinous differentiation. Several studies have directly compared endometrioid and mucinous carcinomas, the latter presumably of the usual type, with respect to patient outcomes after treatment. All have found no difference in overall and disease free survival between these groups. However, three major studies have found mucinous carcinomas to be associated with a higher risk of lymph node metastases. Nineteen cases of mucinous carcinoma of the gastrointestinal type have been reported, and the limited data on their follow-up after primary treatment suggests that this subtype is more clinically aggressive and should accordingly be classified separately from mucinous carcinomas of the usual type. The morphologic spectrum of mucinous carcinoma of the gastrointestinal type is unclear and continues to evolve. Mucinous change, which may sometimes be extensive, may also be associated with papillary proliferation of the endometrium, adenomyoma of the endocervical type, atypical, and typical adenomyomas. In a curettage or biopsy, intestinal type mucinous epithelium may be indicative of any of the gastrointestinal lesions mentioned above, but may also represent samplings of uterine teratomas, yolk sac tumors, genital and extragenital adenocarcinomas with intestinal differentiation, or low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms that secondarily involve the endometrium.

[Precursor lesions of endometrial carcinoma]

The 2014 WHO classification distinguishes between endometrial hyperplasia without atypia (EH) and atypical endometrial hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (AEH/EIN). AEH/EIN is characterized by crowded glands with cytologically atypical epithelium separated by little intervening stroma. Cellular atypia is characterized by nuclear enlargement and rounding, pleomorphism, loss of polarity, and presence of nucleoli. The diagnosis of atypia is facilitated by comparison with areas of adjacent normal and non-atypical glands, respectively. AEH/EIN is often associated with squamous but also secretory and mucinous metaplasia. Loss of PTEN and/or PAX2 immunoreactivity occurs in up to two thirds of AEH/EIN. In contrast, invasive low-grade endometrioid carcinoma shows confluent growth with loss of stroma and formation of labyrinth-like or cribriform structures. Differential diagnosis includes different forms of metaplasias, papillary proliferations, and hyperplastic polyps. Epithelial metaplasia may be present in various benign endometrial lesions as well as in endometrioid adenocarcinoma. AEH/EIN may also occur in endometrial polyps. Progestin therapy of AEH/EIN has low level of evidence but frequently leads to complete regression. Serous intraepithelial carcinoma (SEIC) is characterized by high-grade cellular atypia and polymorphism, detachment of cells, a mutant immunoreactive pattern for the P53 and an increased Ki67 labeling index. Although designated as precursor of serous carcinoma of the endometrium, biologically it is considered a non-invasive serous carcinoma since it may already be associated with massive extrauterine spread.

Emerging relationships between papillary proliferation of the endometrium and endometrial carcinoma: evidence from an immunohistochemical and molecular analysis

Papillary proliferation of the endometrium (PPE) is an uncommon lesion that frequently shows mucinous metaplasia. PPE occasionally has concurrent or preceding endometrial hyperplasia and carcinomas, but there is little molecular evidence to support the relationships between PPEs and endometrial neoplasia. In this study, we analyzed the clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features in 30 PPEs (22 simple PPEs and 8 complex papillary hyperplasia (CPH)). Hotspot mutations of KRAS, PI3KCA, AKT1, PTEN (exons 3, 5, and 7), and ARID1A (exons 1 and 14) were detected by pyrosequencing or bidirectional Sanger sequencing. We found that endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma were more common in CPHs (4/6, 66.7%) than in simple PPEs (4/21, 19.0%) (p < 0.05). Compared with the adjacent normal endometrium, PPEs frequently showed loss of PAX2 (56.7%) and PTEN (10%) expression, diffuse p16 expression (36.7%), decreased PR expression (84.3%), and lower Ki67 labeling index (median 1%, range 1-15%). Simple PPEs and CPHs had similar immunohistochemical features (p > 0.05). KRAS mutations were identified in 14 PPEs and 1 concurrent endometrial carcinoma. The prevalence of KRAS mutations was not statistically different between simple PPEs (10/21, 45.5%) and CPHs (4/8, 50%) (p > 0.05), but was higher in PPEs displaying mucinous metaplasia (12/24, 50%) than in those without (2/6, 33.3%) (p < 0.05). One simple PPE with a KRAS mutation had an AKT1 mutation. No PPEs demonstrated mutations in PI3KCA, PTEN, and ARID1A. In conclusion, both simple PPE and CPH share some common molecular alterations with endometrial neoplasia, in which, KRAS mutations might be a driver.

Benign endometrial proliferations mimicking malignancies: a review of problematic entities in small biopsy specimens

Benign proliferations that mimic malignancies are commonly encountered during the course of assessment of small and fragmented endometrial samples. Although benign, endometrial epithelial metaplasias often coexist with premalignant or malignant lesions causing diagnostic confusion. The difficulty with mucinous metaplasia lies in its distinction from atypical mucinous glandular proliferations and mucinous carcinomas, which are associated with significant interobserver variability. Papillary proliferation of the endometrium is commonly associated with hormonal drugs and endometrial polyps and is characterised by papillae with fibrovascular cores covered by epithelial cells without cytologic atypia. They are classified into simple or complex papillary proliferations depending on the architectural complexity and extent of proliferation. Complex papillary proliferations are associated with a high risk of concurrent or subsequent hyperplasia with atypia/carcinoma. Papillary proliferations may have coexisting epithelial metaplasias and, most commonly, mucinous metaplasia and syncytial papillary change. Those with striking mucinous metaplasia overlap morphologically with papillary mucinous metaplasia. The latter has been proposed as a precursor of endometrial mucinous carcinoma. Misinterpreting the Arias-Stella reaction as a malignant or premalignant lesion is more likely to occur if the pathologist is unaware that the patient is pregnant or on hormonal drugs. Endometrial hyperplasia with secretory changes may occasionally be difficult to distinguish from the torturous and crowded glands of a late secretory endometrium. Endometrial polyps may have abnormal features that can be misinterpreted as endometrial hyperplasia or Mullerian adenosarcoma. Awareness of these benign endometrial proliferations and their common association with hormonal medication or altered endogenous hormonal levels will help prevent the over-diagnosis of premalignant and malignant lesions.

The diagnosis of mucinous lesions in endometrial samplings by gynaecological pathologists: an analysis of diagnostic reproducibility

The purpose of this study is to assess the reproducibility among gynaecological pathologists in their diagnosis of mucinous alterations in endometrial sampling specimens. Twenty-six cases were independently reviewed by four experienced gynaecological pathologists from four academic medical centres. Pathologists were asked to classify each case into one of four groups, including three World Health Organization (WHO)-recognised categories: (1) mucinous metaplasia; (2) atypical mucinous glandular proliferation; (3) carcinoma; and (4) 'other' (absence of a true mucinous alteration and/or an alteration of non-endometrial origin). The overall reproducibility was 'fair' (κ = 0.39). In an analytical scenario that established three clinically significant groups ('benign/non-neoplastic', 'atypical', and 'carcinoma') by redistributing all group 4 responses, the resultant kappa improved to 0.51 (moderate reproducibility). In another analysis with only two categories-'benign/non-neoplastic' versus 'atypical/carcinoma'-reproducibility was similarly moderate (κ = 0.46). However, with one exception, all cases that were ultimately diagnosed as carcinoma in a follow-up hysterectomy specimen, were classified as atypical or carcinoma in the preceding sampling. For 11 cases that were classified as either 'carcinoma' or 'atypical' by all observers, there was moderate reproducibility (κ = 0.53) in making that distinction, and none of a wide array of morphological features were found to significantly distinguish between these two categories. For five cases that all observers classified as either mucinous metaplasia or benign endocervix, reproducibility was substantial (κ = 0.67). In summary, gynaecological pathologists show moderate reproducibility in categorising mucinous alterations in endometrial sampling specimens as benign, atypical, or carcinomatous. They accurately classify as at least 'atypical' those cases that are ultimately diagnosed as carcinoma in the subsequent resection. Our findings suggest that there are indeed some mucinous alterations which have features that do not allow for reproducible assignment by pathologists into the WHO-recognised categories. In this subset of cases, there may be a need for better-defined diagnostic criteria and/or extra-morphological diagnostic tools.