Genital chronic graft-versus-host disease in females: a cross-sectional study.

Using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus criteria for chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), we assessed the prevalence, symptoms, and clinical signs of female genital cGVHD in a cross-sectional population-based study. Forty-two women were evaluated at a median of 80 months (range, 13 to 148 months) after undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Medical history, ongoing medications, and genital signs and symptoms were recorded. Gynecologic examination for the diagnosis and clinical scoring of genital cGVHD was combined with clinical scoring of extragenital cGVHD for the estimation of each patient's global cGVHD score. Biopsy specimens from the genital mucosa were obtained from 38 patients. Genital cGVHD was diagnosed in 22 of 42 patients (52%). Its presence was associated with systemic corticoid steroid treatment of extragenital cGVHD (P = .001), older age (P = .07), and HSCT from a sibling donor (P = .002). Five patients had isolated genital cGVHD. Dryness, pain, smarting pain (P < .05 for all), and dyspareunia (P = .001) were observed more frequently in the women with genital cGVHD. Twelve patients had advanced genital cGVHD (clinical score 3), which was the main factor explaining the high rate (15 of 42) of severe global cGVHD. The rate of genital cGVHD was similar (P = .37) in patients with a follow-up of ≥80 months (10 of 22) and those with a follow-up of <80 months (12 of 20). We found no convincing relationship between clinical diagnosis and histopathological assessment of mucosal biopsy specimens. In our group of women with a long follow-up after HSCT, genital cGVHD was common and in many cases incorrectly diagnosed. Genital cGVHD causes genital symptoms and affects sexual life, and may present without any other cGVHD, warranting early and continuous gynecologic surveillance in all women after HSCT.

Ovarian carcinoma histotype determination is highly reproducible, and is improved through the use of immunohistochemistry.

AIMS: To assess the variation in ovarian carcinoma type diagnosis among gynaecological pathologists from Nordic countries, and whether a rationally designed panel of immunohistochemical markers could improve diagnostic reproducibility. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eight pathologists from four countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland) received an educational lecture on the diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma type. All tumour-containing slides from 54 ovarian carcinoma cases were independently reviewed by the participants, who: (i) determined type purely on the basis of histology; (ii) indicated whether they would apply immunohistochemistry in their routine practice; and (iii) determined type after reviewing the staining results. The results for six markers (WT1, p53, p16, HNF-1ß, ARID1A, and progesterone receptor) were determined for all 54 cases, by staining of a tissue microarray. The median concordance with central review diagnosis was 86%, and significantly improved to 90% with the incorporation of immunostaining results (P = 0.0002). The median interobserver agreement was 78%, and significantly improved to 85% with the incorporation of immunostaining results (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the immunostaining results significantly improved both diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement. These results indicate that ovarian carcinoma type can be reliably diagnosed by pathologists from different countries, and also demonstrate that immunohistochemistry has an important role in improving diagnostic accuracy and agreement between pathologists.