Abstract
Methods
To compare the architectural, nuclear and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grading systems in endometrial cancer 70 consecutive patients with endometrial cancer were retrospectively reevaluated with three grading systems.
Results
Twenty-eight (40%), 27 (38.6%) and 14 (20%) cases were reported to have different grades when architectural vs nuclear, architectural vs. FIGO and nuclear vs. FIGO grading systems were compared in evaluation, respectively. Only 3 (42.8%) of the seven died patients had grade 3 in all three grading systems. Five-year survival rates were 95.7, 80, and 78.6% for architectural grade 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Same rates were 96.7, 90.5, and 78.9% for nuclear and 96, 91.7 and 81% for FIGO grading systems, respectively.
Conclusions
Grades of the tumors often change when different grading systems are used. Postoperative treatment should be considered when at least one of the grading systems indicates poor differentiation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ayhan A, Taskiran C, Yuce K, Kucukali T (2003) The prognostic value of nuclear grading and the revised FIGO grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 22:71–74
Delaloye JF, Pampallona S, Coucke PA, Megalo A, De Grandi P (2000) Effect of grade on disease-free survival and overall survival in FIGO stage I adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 88:75–80
Hachisuga T, Kawarabayashi T, Iwasaka T, Sugimori H, Kamura T, Tsuneyoshi M (1997) The prognostic value of semiquantitative nuclear grading in endometrial carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol 65:115–120
Kaleli S, Kosebay D, Bese T, Demirkiran F, Oz UA, Arvas M, Aydinli K, Erkun E (1997) A strong prognostic variable in endometrial carcinoma: flow cytometric S-phase fraction. Cancer 79:944–951
Lax SF, Kurman RJ, Pizer ES, Wu L, Ronnett BM (2000) A binary architectural grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma has superior reproducibility compared with FIGO grading and identifies subsets of advance-stage tumors with favorable and unfavorable prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol 24:1201–1208
Mittal KR, Schwartz PE, Barwick KW (1988) Architectural (FIGO) grading, nuclear grading and other prognostic indicators in stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma with identification of high risk and low risk groups. Cancer 61:538–545
Nielsen AL, Thomsen HK, Nyholm HC (1991) Evaluation of the reproducibility of the revised 1988 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading system of endometrial cancers with special emphasis on nuclear grading. Cancer 68:2303–2309
Nordstrom B, Strang P, Lindgren A, Bergstrom R, Tribukait B (1996) Carcinoma of the endometrium: do the nuclear grade and DNA ploidy provide more prognostic information than do the FIGO and WHO classifications? Int J Gynecol Pathol 15:191–201
Ozalp S, Yalcin OT, Mete Tanir H, Kabukcuoglu S, Erol G (2003) p53 Overexpression as a prognostic indicator in endometrial carcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 24:275–278
Ozuysal S, Bilgin T, Ozan H, Kara HF, Ozturk H, Ercan I (2003) Angiogenesis in endometrial carcinoma: correlation with survival and clinicopathological risk factors. Gynecol Obstet Invest 55:173–177
Salvesen HB, Iversen OE, Akslen LA (1998) Prognostic impact of morphometric nuclear grade of endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 83:956–964
Scholten AN, Creutzberg CL, Noorduk EM, Smit VTHBM (2002) Long-term outcome in endometrial carcinoma favors a two instead of a three-tiered grading system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:1067–1074
Shepherd JH (1989) Revised FIGO staging for gynaecological cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 96:889–892
Taylor RR, Zeller J, Lieberman RW, O’Connor DM (1999) An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 74:3–6
Zaino RJ, Silverberg SG, Norris HJ, Bundy BN, Morrow CP, Okagaki T (1994) The prognostic value of nuclear versus architectural grading in endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Int J Gynecol Pathol 13:29–36
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bilgin, T., Özuysal, S. & Ozan, H. A comparison of three histological grading systems in endometrial cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 272, 23–25 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-004-0625-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-004-0625-y