Comparison of nonspecific inflammatory markers in endometrial cancer and hyperplasia

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze inflammatory markers among patients with endometrial cancer, hyperplasia with atypia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, hyperplasia without atypia, and normal controls, thus observing the stage at which inflammation becomes the most significant. METHODS: A total of 444 patients who had endometrial sampling were included in the study (endometrial cancer, n=79; endometrial hyperplasia with atypia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, n=27; endometrial hyperplasia without atypia, n=238; and normal controls, n=100). Neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, platelet count, platelet distribution width, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, platelet/lymphocyte ratio, CA-125, and endometrial thickness of the patients were recorded. RESULTS: Comparing the groups for neutrophil count, the hyperplasia with atypia group had higher values compared with both the hyperplasia without atypia group and the control group (p=0.003). When compared for the lymphocyte count, the hyperplasia with atypia group had lower values compared with the control group (p=0.014). Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio of the hyperplasia with atypia group was higher than all other groups, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio of the cancer group was higher than the control group (p=0.001). Platelet count, mean platelet volume, platelet distribution width, and platelet/lymphocyte ratio values were not significantly different among groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the inflammatory markers, the most prominent result was that the hyperplasia with atypia group had neutrophilia, lymphopenia, and increased neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio compared with other groups.

Expressions of PAX-2 and PTEN in endometrial lesions and their correlation with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia / 肿瘤研究与临床

Objective To observe the expression of PAX-2 and PTEN in different types of endometrial lesions, and to study their relationship with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN). Methods 60 cases of endometrial hyperplasic lesions and 70 cases of endometrial carcinoma were enrolled. All cases were reclassified by using the diagnostic criteria of EIN, and PAX-2 and PTEN were stained to compare the difference among them. Results The deletion rates of PAX-2 in benign hyperplasia, EIN and endometrial carcinoma were 39.5 % (15/38), 72.7 % (16/22) and 78.6 % (55/70), respectively, and there was a statistical difference (χ2= 21.664, P= 0.000). The deletion rates of PTEN in benign hyperplasia, EIN and endometrial carcinoma were 47.4%(18/38), 54.5%(12/22) and 75.7%(53/70), respectively, and there was no statistical difference (χ2=2.878, P=0.411). Conclusion The staining of PAX-2 could be considered as a reliable adjuvant diagnostic method in the diagnostic criteria of EIN, however, the loss of PTEN just should be regarded as a suggestion of EIN, not a confirmed diagnostic basis.

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.