Evaluating the diagnostic performance of preoperative endometrial biopsies in patients diagnosed with high grade endometrial cancer: A study of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (GOC) Community of Practice (CoP).


Journal

Gynecologic oncology
ISSN: 1095-6859
Titre abrégé: Gynecol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0365304

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2020
Historique:
received: 08 04 2020
accepted: 30 06 2020
pubmed: 23 7 2020
medline: 15 4 2021
entrez: 23 7 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

High grade cancers account for a disproportionate number of recurrences in patients with endometrial cancer. Accurately identifying these cases on endometrial biopsies allows for better surgical planning. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of general pathologists (GP) compared to gynecological pathologists (GYNP) in interpreting preoperative biopsies. A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients diagnosed with high grade endometrial cancer (HGEC) between 2012 and 2016 at eight Canadian cancer centres. Data was collected from medical records. Pre-operative biopsies were categorized into groups; biopsies read by GP, GYNP and GP reviewed by GYNP. Rates of HGEC on pre-operative biopsy were calculated. Fisher exact test was used to compare differences between the groups. Univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted for HGEC prediction. Of 1237 patients diagnosed with HGEC, 245 (19.8%) did not have a preoperative diagnosis of high-grade disease. Discordancy was identified in 91/287 (31.71%) of biopsies reported by GP, and in 114/910 (12.53%) of biopsies reported by a GYNP (p < 0.0001). Compared to GP, GYNP were 3.24 (CI 2.36-4.45) times more likely to identify high grade disease on preoperative biopsy. Patients whose biopsy was reported by a GYNP were more likely to have a comprehensive staging procedure (OR 1.77 CI 1.33-2.38) and less likely to receive adjuvant therapy (OR 0.71 CI 0.52-0.96). GYNP are more likely to identify HGEC on pre-operative biopsies. Due to high rates of overall discordancy, it is possible that surgical staging procedures should not be based solely on preoperative biopsy. Further strategies to improve pre-operative biopsies' accuracy are needed.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
High grade cancers account for a disproportionate number of recurrences in patients with endometrial cancer. Accurately identifying these cases on endometrial biopsies allows for better surgical planning. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of general pathologists (GP) compared to gynecological pathologists (GYNP) in interpreting preoperative biopsies.
METHODS
A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients diagnosed with high grade endometrial cancer (HGEC) between 2012 and 2016 at eight Canadian cancer centres. Data was collected from medical records. Pre-operative biopsies were categorized into groups; biopsies read by GP, GYNP and GP reviewed by GYNP. Rates of HGEC on pre-operative biopsy were calculated. Fisher exact test was used to compare differences between the groups. Univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted for HGEC prediction.
RESULTS
Of 1237 patients diagnosed with HGEC, 245 (19.8%) did not have a preoperative diagnosis of high-grade disease. Discordancy was identified in 91/287 (31.71%) of biopsies reported by GP, and in 114/910 (12.53%) of biopsies reported by a GYNP (p < 0.0001). Compared to GP, GYNP were 3.24 (CI 2.36-4.45) times more likely to identify high grade disease on preoperative biopsy. Patients whose biopsy was reported by a GYNP were more likely to have a comprehensive staging procedure (OR 1.77 CI 1.33-2.38) and less likely to receive adjuvant therapy (OR 0.71 CI 0.52-0.96).
CONCLUSION
GYNP are more likely to identify HGEC on pre-operative biopsies. Due to high rates of overall discordancy, it is possible that surgical staging procedures should not be based solely on preoperative biopsy. Further strategies to improve pre-operative biopsies' accuracy are needed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32694064
pii: S0090-8258(20)32336-2
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.06.510
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Evaluation Study Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

52-57

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Kizanee Jegatheeswaran (K)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada.

Beatrice Cormier (B)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Université de Montreal, Canada.

Samantha Dube (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Université de Montreal, Canada.

Walter Henri Gotlieb (WH)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Canada.

Limor Helpman (L)

Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, McMaster University, Canada.

Janice S Kwon (JS)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of British Columbia, Canada.

Susie Lau (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Canada.

Sarah Mah (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of British Columbia, Canada.

Taymaa May (T)

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Canada.

Dima Saab (D)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada.

Maggie McNeill (M)

Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, McMaster University, Canada.

Marie Plante (M)

Gynecologic Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Hôtel-Dieu de Québec-Université Laval, Canada.

Marie Claude Renaud (MC)

Gynecologic Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Hôtel-Dieu de Québec-Université Laval, Canada.

Sarah Shamiya (S)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada.

Danielle Vicus (D)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada.

Carlos Parra-Herran (C)

Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada.

Tomer Feigenberg (T)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Trillium Health Partners, Canada. Electronic address: Tomer.feigenberg@thp.ca.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH