Predictors of endometrial carcinoma in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia at a tertiary gynaecological cancer centre in Western Australia.

AIM: Our objective was to assess clinical and pathological factors associated with a final diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia with a particular emphasis on the grading of atypia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review over five years on patients (N = 97) who underwent hysterectomy for a diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia at a statewide public tertiary gynaecologic oncology centre. Clinical and pathological characteristics were obtained. RESULTS: The rate of concurrent endometrial carcinoma was 34% (n = 33) with most being stage 1A endometrioid. A significant group difference was reported for age at diagnosis (t = -2.20 P = 0.031 d = 0.43) with carcinoma patients on average older (Mage  = 60.2 (8.9) years) than patients without carcinoma (Mage  = 55.5 (12.3) years). No significant group differences were found for body mass index, endometrial thickness or time between diagnosis and treatment. Significantly higher rates of carcinoma were reported in patients with moderate atypical hyperplasia (27.6%) and severe atypical hyperplasia (66.7%), compared to mild atypical hyperplasia (7.1%). Only severe atypical hyperplasia (odds ratio (OR) = 21.5, 95% CI 2.8-163.1, P = 0.003) and postmenopausal status (OR = 13.2, 95% CI 1.3-139.0, P = 0.032) significantly increased the risk of carcinoma in a multivariate model. CONCLUSION: Severe atypical hyperplasia and postmenopausal status were significant predictors of concurrent endometrial carcinoma in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia. The grading of atypical hyperplasia may be utilised by gynaecologic oncologists in the triage and referral process of managing these patients; however, the grading system requires external validation in larger prospective studies.

Cyclin D1 immunoreactivity in normal endocervix and diagnostic value in reactive and neoplastic endocervical lesions.

It may be difficult to distinguish reactive glandular lesions from adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix, and although several immunohistochemical markers have established value in this diagnostic setting, none is completely reliable. We have noted that neoplastic endocervical lesions often show loss of nuclear cyclin D1 expression in contrast to benign glandular cells. Therefore, we investigated cyclin D1 staining in a series of 64 cervical biopsy specimens including examples of normal and reactive endocervical epithelium, adenocarcinoma in situ, stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesions, and invasive adenocarcinoma. Thirteen specimens also included a component of high-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial neoplasia. Normal endocervical epithelium usually expressed cyclin D1, although staining was typically focal, and there was increased immunoreactivity in reactive and metaplastic glandular cells including tubo-endometrioid metaplasia. In contrast, most cases of adenocarcinoma in situ were completely negative and, therefore, cyclin D1 staining distinguished benign from neoplastic epithelial cells. Although focal cyclin D1 expression was observed in 5/19 cases of adenocarcinoma in situ, the staining was associated with more marked cytological atypia precluding confusion with a reactive process. The invasive adenocarcinomas were mainly negative for cyclin D1. However, focal staining was observed in 10/19 cases and was mainly restricted to cells at the deep tumor margin, or to small infiltrative glands and detached cell clusters within the stroma. In conclusion, cyclin D1 can be included within an immunohistochemical panel to aid in the distinction between reactive cervical glandular lesions and adenocarcinoma in situ. The localized distribution of staining within invasive lesions suggests that cyclin D1 up-regulation has a specific role during the progression of some endocervical adenocarcinomas.