RESUMO
CONTEXT: The endometrium is an intrinsically dynamic tissue with great capability for regeneration and proliferation; consequently, there is some overlap between features seen in benign, premalignant, and malignant lesions. This leads to marked intrabiopsy, interbiopsy, and interobserver variability. OBJECTIVE: We studied the specificity and sensitivity of computerized image analysis of molecular markers to evaluate its potential use as a diagnostic tool. DESIGN: Specimens from 100 patients were examined and the following histologic diagnoses were assigned: proliferative endometrium (n = 10), secretory endometrium (n = 10), endometrial hyperplasia (n = 40; 30 with no atypia, 10 with atypia), and carcinoma (n = 40; 20 endometrioid, 10 serous, and 10 clear cell). All cases were evaluated immunohistochemically for p53 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) expression. Computerized image analysis was performed with a CAS 200 digital analyzer. RESULTS: Expression of p53 was found only in carcinomas (65%) and endometrial hyperplasia with atypia (30%). Expression of p53 was higher in the poor prognostic categories (serous carcinoma and clear cell carcinoma) than in endometrioid carcinoma. In endometrioid carcinoma, p53 expression correlated with grade. Proliferating cell nuclear antigen showed a similar pattern of results to p53 in the various carcinoma subtypes and endometrioid carcinoma grades. Endometrial hyperplasia PCNA values were the lowest among all the groups. Both carcinomas and proliferative endometrium showed higher glandular and stromal PCNA values, significantly different from endometrial hyperplasia with atypia. In proliferative endometrium, stromal PCNA was the highest among all of the groups. The p53 and PCNA results correlated with each other for carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized image analysis correlates well with the established morphologic groups of endometrial pathology and yields results consistent with previous studies. Owing to its higher degree of sensitivity, computerized image analysis is of potential use in cases of diagnostic dilemmas and can help objectively allocate the case in the correct category (e.g., proliferative endometrium vs. endometrial hyperplasia, endometrial hyperplasia with atypia vs. endometrioid carcinoma). It is particularly useful in the evaluation of stromal changes.