Journal Menu
- About this Journal
- Abstracting and Indexing
- Aims and Scope
- Article Processing Charges
- Articles in Press
- Author Guidelines
- Bibliographic Information
- Citations to this Journal
- Contact Information
- Editorial Board
- Editorial Workflow
- Free eTOC Alerts
- Publication Ethics
- Reviewers Acknowledgment
- Submit a Manuscript
- Subscription Information
- Table of Contents
Obstetrics and Gynecology International
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 414086, 6 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/414086
Research Article
Interobserver Agreement for Endometrial Cancer Characteristics Evaluated on Biopsy Material
1Department of Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
2Division of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
Received 13 May 2011; Accepted 17 October 2011
Academic Editor: Sean Blackwell
Copyright © 2012 S. Nofech-Mozes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Linked References
- International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, “Corpus cancer staging,” International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, vol. 28, pp. 189–190, 2007.
- W. T. Creasman, C. P. Morrow, B. N. Bundy, H. D. Homesley, J. E. Graham, and P. B. Heller, “Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A gynecologic oncology group study,” Cancer, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 2035–2041, 1987. View at Scopus
- D. Egle, B. Grissemann, A. G. Zeimet, E. Müller-Holzner, and C. Marth, “Validation of intraoperative risk assessment on frozen section for surgical management of endometrial carcinoma,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 286–292, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
- R. C. Boronow, C. P. Morrow, W. T. Creasman, et al., “Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 825–832, 1984. View at Scopus
- M. S. Piver, J. J. Barlow, and S. B. Lele, “Para-aortic lymph node metastasis in FIGO stage I endometrial carcinoma. Value of surgical staging and results of treatment,” New York State Journal of Medicine, vol. 82, no. 9, pp. 1321–1324, 1982. View at Scopus
- A. Mariani, S. C. Dowdy, W. A. Cliby et al., “Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 11–18, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- T. Hidaka, K. Kato, R. Yonezawa et al., “Omission of lymphadenectomy is possible for low-risk corpus cancer,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 86–90, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- G. H. Eltabbakh, J. Shamonki, and S. L. Mount, “Surgical stage, final grade, and survival of women with endometrial carcinoma whose preoperative endometrial biopsy shows well-differentiated tumors,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 309–312, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- M. E. Sherman, B. M. Ronnett, O. B. Ioffe et al., “Reproducibility of biopsy diagnoses of endometrial hyperplasia: evidence supporting a simplified classification,” International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 318–325, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- E. R. Myers, S. Silva, K. Barnhart et al., “Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the histological dating of the endometrium in fertile and infertile women,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 1278–1282, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- R. R. Taylor, J. Zeller, R. W. Lieberman, and D. M. O'Connor, “An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 3–6, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- B. S. Kendall, B. M. Ronnett, C. Isacson et al., “Reproducibility of the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and well-differentiated carcinoma,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1012–1019, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- S. Smith, S. Hosid, and L. Scott, “Endometrial biopsy dating: interobserver variation and its impact on clinical practice,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 1–3, 1995. View at Scopus
- A. N. Scholten, V. T. H. B. M. Smit, H. Beerman, W. L. J. Van Putten, and C. L. Creutzberg, “Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma,” Cancer, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 764–772, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- C. Crum and L. L. K. M. G. Duska, “Adenocarcinoma, carcinosarcoma and other epithelial tumors of the endometrium,” in Diagnostic Gynecologic and Obstetric Pathology, C. Crum and K. R. Lee, Eds., Elsevier Saunders, 2006.
- B. M. Ronnett, R. Zaino, L. Ellenson, and R. J. Kurman, “Endometrial carcinoma,” in Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract, R. J. Kurman, Ed., Springer, New York, NY, USA, 5th edition, 2001.
- B. Nordström, P. Strang, A. Lindgren, R. Bergström, and B. Tribukait, “Carcinoma of the endometrium: do the nuclear grade and DNA ploidy provide more prognostic information than do the FIGO and WHO classifications?” International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 191–201, 1996.
- C. L. Trimble, J. Kauderer, R. Zaino et al., “Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a gynecologic oncology group study,” Cancer, vol. 106, no. 4, pp. 812–819, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,” Biometrics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 159–174, 1977. View at Scopus
- T. J. Selman, C. H. Mann, J. Zamora, and K. S. Khan, “A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer,” BMC Women's Health, vol. 8, article 8, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
- A. Mariani, S. C. Dowdy, W. A. Cliby et al., “Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 11–18, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- M. M. Leitao, “Current and future surgical approaches in the management of endometrial carcinoma,” Future Oncology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 389–401, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- R. C. Boronow, “Endometrial cancer and lymph node surgery: the spins continue—a case for reason,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 3–6, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- T. Hidaka, K. Kato, R. Yonezawa et al., “Omission of lymphadenectomy is possible for low-risk corpus cancer,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 86–90, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- J. K. Chan, H. Wu, M. K. Cheung, J. Y. Shin, K. Osann, and D. S. Kapp, “The outcomes of 27,063 women with unstaged endometrioid uterine cancer,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 282–288, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- A. N. Scholten, W. L. J. Van Putten, H. Beerman et al., “Postoperative radiotherapy for Stage 1 endometrial carcinoma: long-term outcome of the randomized PORTEC trial with central pathology review,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 834–838, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- A. Mariani, M. J. Webb, G. L. Keeney, M. G. Haddock, G. Calori, and K. C. Podratz, “Low-risk corpus cancer: is lymphadenectomy or radiotherapy necessary?” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 182, no. 6, pp. 1506–1519, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- D. S. Mohan, M. A. Samuels, M. A. Selim et al., “Long-term outcomes of therapeutic pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 165–171, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- J. Aalders, V. Abeler, P. Kolstad, and M. Onsrud, “Postoperative external irradiation and prognostic parameters in stage I endometrial carcinoma. Clinical and histopathologic study of 540 patients,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 419–427, 1980. View at Scopus
- S. Nofech-Mozes, Z. Ghorab, N. Ismiil et al., “Endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma: a pathologic analysis of 827 consecutive cases,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 110–114, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- M. M. Leitao, “Current and future surgical approaches in the management of endometrial carcinoma,” Future Oncology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 389–401, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- J. S. Kwon, M. S. Carey, E. F. Cook, F. Qiu, and L. Paszat, “Patterns of practice and outcomes in intermediate- and high-risk stage I and II endometrial cancer: a population-based study,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 433–440, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- B. W. Corn, C. J. Dunton, J. A. Carlson, Y. Xie, and R. K. Valicenti, “National trends in the surgical staging of corpus cancer: a pattern-of- practice survey,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 628–631, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- J. Aalders, V. Abeler, P. Kolstad, and M. Onsrud, “Postoperative external irradiation and prognostic parameters in stage I endometrial carcinoma. Clinical and histopathologic study of 540 patients,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 419–427, 1980. View at Scopus
- J. K. Chan, H. Wu, M. K. Cheung, J. Y. Shin, K. Osann, and D. S. Kapp, “The outcomes of 27,063 women with unstaged endometrioid uterine cancer,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 282–288, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- J. S. Kwon, M. S. Carey, E. F. Cook, F. Qiu, and L. Paszat, “Patterns of practice and outcomes in intermediate- and high-risk stage I and II endometrial cancer: a population-based study,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 433–440, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- P. Y. Roland, F. J. Kelly, C. Y. Kulwicki, P. Blitzer, M. Curcio, and J. W. Orr, “The benefits of a gynecologic oncologist: a pattern of care study for endometrial cancer treatment,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 125–130, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- J. S. Kwon, M. S. Carey, S. J. Goldie, and J. J. Kim, “Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment strategies for Stage I and II endometrial cancer,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 131–139, 2007. View at Scopus
- A. Mariani, M. J. Webb, G. L. Keeney, M. G. Haddock, G. Calori, and K. C. Podratz, “Low-risk corpus cancer: is lymphadenectomy or radiotherapy necessary?” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 182, no. 6, pp. 1506–1519, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- J. K. Chan, H. Wu, M. K. Cheung, J. Y. Shin, K. Osann, and D. S. Kapp, “The outcomes of 27,063 women with unstaged endometrioid uterine cancer,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 282–288, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- S. Nofech-Mozes, Z. Ghorab, N. Ismiil et al., “Endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma: a pathologic analysis of 827 consecutive cases,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 110–114, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- J. K. Chan, H. Wu, M. K. Cheung, J. Y. Shin, K. Osann, and D. S. Kapp, “The outcomes of 27,063 women with unstaged endometrioid uterine cancer,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 282–288, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- M. M. Leitao, “Current and future surgical approaches in the management of endometrial carcinoma,” Future Oncology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 389–401, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- R. R. Taylor, J. Zeller, R. W. Lieberman, and D. M. O'Connor, “An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 3–6, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- S. F. Lax, R. J. Kurman, E. S. Pizer, L. Wu, and B. M. Ronnett, “A binary architectural grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma has superior reproducibility compared with FIGO grading and identifies subsets of advance-stage tumors with favorable and unfavorable prognosis,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1201–1208, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- M. E. Sherman, B. M. Ronnett, O. B. Ioffe et al., “Reproducibility of biopsy diagnoses of endometrial hyperplasia: evidence supporting a simplified classification,” International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 318–325, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- B. S. Kendall, B. M. Ronnett, C. Isacson et al., “Reproducibility of the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and well-differentiated carcinoma,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1012–1019, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- A. N. Scholten, V. T. H. B. M. Smit, H. Beerman, W. L. J. Van Putten, and C. L. Creutzberg, “Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma,” Cancer, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 764–772, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- S. F. Lax, R. J. Kurman, E. S. Pizer, L. Wu, and B. M. Ronnett, “A binary architectural grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma has superior reproducibility compared with FIGO grading and identifies subsets of advance-stage tumors with favorable and unfavorable prognosis,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1201–1208, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- S. Sagae, T. Saito, M. Satoh et al., “The reproducibility of a binary tumor grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, compared with FIGO system and nuclear grading,” Oncology, vol. 67, no. 5-6, pp. 344–350, 2004. View at Scopus
- M. M. Leitao, “Current and future surgical approaches in the management of endometrial carcinoma,” Future Oncology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 389–401, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- J. Mitchard and L. Hirschowitz, “Concordance of FIGO grade of endometrial adenocarcinomas in biopsy and hysterectomy specimens,” Histopathology, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 372–378, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- X. Wang, Z. Huang, W. Di, and Q. Lin, “Comparison of D&C and hysterectomy pathologic findings in endometrial cancer patients,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 272, no. 2, pp. 136–141, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
- G. H. Eltabbakh, J. Shamonki, and S. L. Mount, “Surgical stage, final grade, and survival of women with endometrial carcinoma whose preoperative endometrial biopsy shows well-differentiated tumors,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 309–312, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus