4.5 Article

Prognostic importance of atypical endometriosis with architectural hyperplasia versus cytologic atypia in endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

KOREAN SOC GYNECOLOGY ONCOLOGY & COLPOSCOPY
DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e63

关键词

Endometriosis; Ovarian Cancer; Hyperplasia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Patients with endometriosis are at increased risk of ovarian cancer. It has been suggested that atypical endometriosis is a precursor lesion of endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer (EAOC). The aim of this study is to evaluate if cytologic (cellular) atypia and architectural atypia (hyperplasia), histologic findings described as atypical endometriosis, play a different role in patients with EAOC. Methods: A prospective study was conducted between January 2014 and April 2017 at our institution with patients undergoing surgery with a histologic diagnosis of endometriosis, ovarian cancer, or EAOC. The prevalence and immunohistologic study (Ki-67, BAF250a, COX-2) of cases of cellular and architectural atypia in endometriosis were analyzed. Results: Two hundred and sixty-six patients were included: the diagnosis was endometriosis alone in 159 cases, ovarian cancer in 81, and EAOC in 26. Atypical endometriosis was reported in 23 cases (12.43%), 39.13% of them found in patients with EAOC. Endometriosis with cellular atypia was found mainly in patients without neoplasm (71.4%), and endometriosis with architectural atypia was seen in patients with ovarian cancer (88.9%) (p= 0.009). Ki-67 was significantly higher in endometriosis patients with architectural atypia than those with cellular atypia. Conclusion: The diagnosis of endometriosis with architectural atypia is important because it may be a precursor lesion of ovarian cancer; therefore, pathologists finding endometriosis should carefully examine the surgical specimen to identify any patients with hyperplasia-type endometriosis, as they may be at higher risk of developing EAOC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据