Comparison of WHO and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classifications in predicting the presence of coexistent malignancy in endometrial hyperplasia / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: The most commonly used classification system for endometrial hyperplasia is the World Health Organization system which is based on subjective criteria. Another classification system is endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) system which uses diagnostic criteria including cytological demarcation, crowded gland architecture, minimum size of 1 mm, and careful exclusion of mimics, and aims to identify a precancer or cancer. The objective of this study was to compare the two classification systems in terms of predicting the presence of a coexistent cancer in surgically treated patients. METHODS: Biopsy and hysterectomy specimens of 49 women who were subjected to surgery with a preoperative diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) according to the WHO system were re-evaluated retrospectively by using EIN system. RESULTS: Among the 49 patients, 69.4% had complex atypical EH and 75.5% had EIN at biopsy specimens. EIN was detected in 94.1% of complex atypical EH, and 41.7% of non-atypical EH. Nine women (18.4%) had endometrial cancer. Among women with cancer, all had complex atypical EH or EIN. The rate of coexistent endometrial cancer was 26.5% in women with complex atypical EH and 24.3% in women with EIN. CONCLUSION: Diagnoses of atypical or complex atypical EH and EIN had similar sensitivities and negative predictive values in predicting the coexistent endometrial cancer. Either of these two classification systems may be used safely when an experienced pathologist is available. However, use of the objective EIN system may be preferred whenever possible to prevent diagnostic errors in centers where an experienced pathologist is not available.

Obesity does not affect the number of retrieved lymph nodes and the rate of intraoperative complications in gynecologic cancers / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: Lymphadenectomy, in general, is a safe and well-tolerated procedure in gynecologic oncology. However, some technical difficulties may be experienced in obese women which may result in inadequate lymphadenectomy and increased complications. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the effect of obesity on lymph node counts retrieved and complication rates observed during lymphadenectomy in gynecologic cancers. METHODS: Patients with ovarian, endometrial or cervical cancers treated with initial surgery including bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection were grouped as non-obese and obese. These two groups were compared in terms of the number of retrieved lymph nodes and the rate of intraoperative complications directly related to lymph node dissection. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were eligible with a mean age of 55.1 years and mean body mass index of 29.2 kg/m2. Fifty-nine patients were obese while 64 were non-obese. Lymph node counts obtained in different stations and in total were similar among non-obese and obese patients. Rates of lymphadenectomy-related intraoperative complications including vascular, neural, intestinal, and bladder injury were also similar in non-obese and obese patients. CONCLUSION: The obesity does not affect the lymph node counts and intraoperative complication rates adversely in women with gynecologic cancers. Therefore, adequate lymph node dissection should not be omitted based solely upon obesity in gynecologic oncology patients.