Advertisement

Virchows Archiv

, Volume 472, Issue 6, pp 897–905 | Cite as

The pattern is the issue: recent advances in adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix

Review and Perspectives

Abstract

In this article, we review a novel risk stratification system for endocervical adenocarcinoma, developed by an international consortium of pathologists after reviewing over 350 such tumors. Their analysis culminated in a three-tiered histopathologic system based on morphologic examination of the tumor, independent of clinical features and stage (depth of invasion). It resulted in better determination of patients’ tumors and likelihood of lymph node metastasis as well as aggressive behavior. A non-destructive pattern (that in some cases was in the histologic differential diagnosis with adenocarcinoma in situ) had an indolent behavior and was labeled pattern A. The other two patterns had destructive invasion, one only focally (pattern B) while pattern C showed diffuse destructive invasion. This system can help select appropriate treatment modalities avoiding unnecessary complications. We comment on specifics of this system as well as issues in differentiation of the tumor patterns, its clinical utility and recent advances in the molecular arena.

Keywords

Endocervical adenocarcinoma Pattern Risk stratification system HPV Cervix 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

References

  1. 1.
    Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS et al (2014) WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edn. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 170–197Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones H 3rd, Ngan HY, Pecorelli S (2000) FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 70(2):209–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(00)90001-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pecorelli S (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105(2):103–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines). Version 1.2017. Available at: http://www.NCCN.org. Accessed 7/17/2017
  5. 5.
    Togami S, Kasamatsu T, Sasajima Y, Onda T, Ishikawa M, Ikeda S, Kato T, Tsuda H (2012) Serous adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinicopathological study of 12 cases and a review of the literature. Gynecol Obstet Investig 73(1):26–31.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000329319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhou C, Gilks CB, Hayes M, Clement PB (1998 Jan) Papillary serous carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinicopathologic study of 17 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 22(1):113–120.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-199801000-00015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fujiwara H, Yokota H, Monk B, Treilleux I, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M, Davis A, Kim JW, Mahner S, Stany M, Pignata S, Ray-Coquard I, Fujiwara K (2014) Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus review for cervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 24(9 Suppl 3):S96–101.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000263 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds) (2010) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edition. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tropé C, Kristensen G, Onsrud M, Bosze P (2001) Controversies in cervical cancer staging. CME J Gynecol Oncol 6:240–245Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buscema J, Woodruff J (1984) Significance of neoplastic abnormalities in endocervical epithelium. Gynecol Oncol 17(3):356–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(84)90221-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zaino RJ (2000) Glandular lesions of the uterine cervix. Mod Pathol 13(3):261–274.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3880047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zaino RJ (2002) Symposium part I: adenocarcinoma in situ, glandular dysplasia, and early invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol 21(4):314–326.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004347-200210000-00002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Creasman WT, Fetter BF, Clarke-Pearson DL, Kaufmann L, Parker RT (1985) Management of stage IA carcinoma of the cervix. Am I Obstet Gynecol 153(2):164–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(85)90105-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sevin BU, Nadji M, Averette HE, Hilsenbeck S, Smith D, Lampe B (1992) Microinvasive carcinoma of the cervix. Cancer 70(8):2121–2128.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19921015)70:8<2121::AID-CNCR2820700819>3.0.CO;2-S CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poynor EA, Marshall D, Sonoda Y, Slomovitz BM, Barakat RR, Soslow RA (2006) Clinicopathologic features of early adenocarcinoma of the cervix initially managed with cervical conization. Gynecol Oncol 103(3):960–965.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.05.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reynolds EA, Tierney K, Keeney GL, Felix JC, Weaver AL, Roman LD, Cliby WA (2010) Analysis of outcomes of microinvasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix by treatment type. Obstet Gynecol 116(5):1150–1157.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f74062 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diaz De Vivar A, Roma AA, Park KJ, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Rasty G, Chanona-Vilchis JG, Mikami Y, Hong SR, Arville B, Teramoto N, Ali-Fehmi R, Rutgers JK, Tabassum F, Barbuto D, Aguilera-Barrantes I, Shaye-Brown A, Daya D, Silva EG (2013) Invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma: proposal for a new pattern-based classification system with significant clinical implications: a multi-institutional study. Int J GynecolPathol 32:592–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roma AA, Diaz De Vivar A, Park KJ, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Rasty G, Chanona-Vilchis JG, Mikami Y, Hong SR, Teramoto N, Ali-Fehmi R, Rutgers JK, Barbuto D, Silva EG (2015) Invasive Endocervical adenocarcinoma: a new pattern-based classification system with important clinical significance. Am J Surg Pathol 39(5):667–672.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000402 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roma AA, Mistretta TA, Diaz De Vivar A, Park KJ, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Rasty G, Chanona-Vilchis JG, Mikami Y, Hong SR, Teramoto N, Ali-Fehmi R, Barbuto D, Rutgers JK, Silva EG (2016) New pattern-based personalized risk stratification system for endocervical adenocarcinoma with important clinical implications and surgical outcome. Gynecol Oncol 141(1):36–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.02.028 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diab Y (2017 Jan) Sentinel lymph nodes mapping in cervical cancer a comprehensive review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 27(1):154–158.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000853 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rutgers JK, Roma AA, Park KJ, Zaino RJ, Johnson A, Alvarado I, Daya D, Rasty G, Longacre TA, Ronnett BM, Silva EG (2016) Pattern classification of endocervical adenocarcinoma: reproducibility and review of criteria. Mod Pathol 29(9):1083–1094.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2016.94 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alvarado-Cabrero I, Roma AA, Park KJ, Rutgers JKL, Silva EG (2017) Factors predicting pelvic lymph node metastasis, relapse, and disease outcome in pattern C endocervical adenocarcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 36(5):476–485.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000357 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roma AA, Park KJ, Xie H, De Vivar AD, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Rutgers JKL, Barbuto D, Silva EG (2017) Role of lymphovascular invasion in pattern C invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 41(9):1205–1211.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000822 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bean SM, Kurtycz DFI, Colgan TJ (2011) Microinvasive and early invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. J Low Genit Tract Dis 15(2):146–157.  https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0b013e3181fb425d CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ostör G (2000) Early invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol 19(1):29–38.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004347-200001000-00005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parra-Herran C, Taljaard M, Djordjevic B, Reyes MC, Schwartz L, Schoolmeester JK, Lastra RR, Quick CM, Laury A, Rasty G, Nucci MR, Howitt BE (2016) Pattern-based classification of invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma, depth of invasion measurement and distinction from adenocarcinoma in situ: interobserver variation among gynecologic pathologists. Mod Pathol 29(8):879–892.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2016.86 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Douglas G, Howitt BE, Schoolmeester JK, Schwartz L, Kos Z, Islam S, Djordjevic B, Parra-Herran C (2017) Architectural overlap between benign endocervix and pattern-A endocervical adenocarcinoma: are all pattern-A tumors invasive? Pathol Res Pract 213(7):799–803.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2017.03.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mikami Y, McCluggage WG (2013) Endocervical glandular lesions exhibiting gastric differentiation: an emerging spectrum of benign, premalignant, and malignant lesions. Adv Anat Pathol 20(4):227–237.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0b013e31829c2d66 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ishii K, Hosaka N, Toki T et al (1998) A new view of the so-called adenoma malignum of the uterine cervix. Virchows Arch 432:315–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gilks CB, Young RH, Aguirre P, RA DL, Scully RE (1989) Adenoma malignum (minimal deviation adenocarcinoma) of the uterine cervix. A clinicopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of 26 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 13(9):717–729.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-198909000-00001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park KJ, Roma AA (2017) Pattern based classification of endocervical adenocarcinoma: a review. Pathology.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2017.09.011
  32. 32.
    Paquette C, Jeffus SK, Quick CM, Conaway MR, Stoler MH, Atkins KA (2015) Interobserver variability in the application of a proposed histologic subclassification of endocervical adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 39(1):93–100.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000316 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hodgson A, Amemiya Y, Seth A, Cesari M, Djordjevic B, Parra-Herran C (2017 Nov) Genomic abnormalities in invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma correlate with pattern of invasion: biologic and clinical implications. Mod Pathol 30(11):1633–1641.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2017.80 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA (2017) Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 41(4):e1–e7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000820 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity of California San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations