Audit of Endometrial Cancer Pathology for a Regional Gynecological Oncology Multidisciplinary Meeting.

Endometrial cancer is a common disease, and in England all cancer cases are discussed at a central multidisciplinary meeting (MDT) with pathology review. We reviewed cases discussed/reviewed at a regional Gynecology MDT comparing (i) original referral histology with review histology and (ii) final review histology with the final hysterectomy histology. Cases identified as potentially eligible for the study (n=884) were found over a 4-yr period. This was reduced to 630 due to data and other issues for the primary biopsy review, and to 488 for both biopsy and hysterectomy sample. Cases were classed by agreement by grade/type and compared by clinical management (low grade vs. high grade). Of the original biopsies, central review agreed exactly with 67% and disagreed with 33%. A total of 11.6% of low-grade cancers were upgraded to high grade on review, and 6.1% of high-grade cancers were downgraded. For the biopsy/hysterectomy comparison, this was 72.5% agreement and 27.5% disagreement, with 3.5% upgraded to high from low grade, and 7.5% downgraded from high to low grade. The main areas of significant change was the identification of high-grade serous carcinoma from low-grade endometrial cancers, as well some other high grade types (clear cell and carcinosarcoma) and the confident diagnosis of cancer as opposed to an atypical hyperplasia. Central pathology review for MDT discussion does highlight significant areas of pathologic disagreement that would affect clinical management. The audit highlights that a significant disagreement rate in reporting such material between pathologists may be inescapable, but can be reduced by review.