Concurrent Endometrial Carcinoma in Endometrial Hyperplasia with Atypia
Corresponding Author: Dhanalakshmi MG, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, Phone: +91 9841432362, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
How to cite this article Manoharan S, Dhanalakshmi MG. Concurrent Endometrial Carcinoma in Endometrial Hyperplasia with Atypia. J South Asian Feder Menopause Soc 2020;8(1):34–36.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None
Background: Endometrium that lies within the uterus may develop hyperplasia, due to various causes, of which unopposed estrogen exposure is the most common one. Endometrial hyperplasia may well mask an underlying malignancy and should be followed upon by further procedures to rule out underlying malignancy.
Materials and methods: This is a prospective observational study, from June 2017 to June 2019, at a tertiary care level teaching institution. Seventy patients who underwent hysterectomy following a diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia with atypia were included.
Results: 95.7% were in multiparous group, 67.14 % were in perimenopausal, 30% in postmenopausal and 2.85% in reproductive age groups, 52.8% presented with abnormal uterine bleeding, 34.28% with postmenopausal bleeding and 12.85% were asymptomatic, 35.41% had diabetes mellitus, 22.91% had hypertension and 30.20% had obesity as comorbid factors. Positive family history for malignancy was noted in 3.1%. MRI findings suggested endometrial carcinoma in 27.2%. In cases in which MRI suggested non malignancy, 82.4% turned out to be malignant in the final histopathology report. Of the 70 patients, 40% had endometrial carcinoma (not otherwise specified), 30% had adenocarcinoma, 10% had serous carcinoma, 5.7% had papillary serous carcinoma and carcinosarcoma in 1.4%. 12.9% were declared to be nonmalignant by final histopathology reports. Except for two patients, all others had grade 1 well differentiated carcinomas.
Conclusion: This study demonstrates that endometrial carcinoma may be coexisting with endometrial hyperplasia with atypia, in majority of cases and available imaging modalities are not foolproof to rule out malignancy. Hence where appropriate hysterectomy may be suggested as the treatment option.
Keywords: Abnormal uterine bleeding, Carcinoma endometrium, Endometrial biopsy, Endometrial cancer, Endometrial thickness, Malignancy, Posmenopausal bleeding, Trans vaginal sonogram..
Carcinoma endometrium happens to be the fourth most common malignancy of women in the world and the sixth leading cause of death in women. Older and obese women, women with chronic ovulatory dysfunction, unopposed estrogen, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and those with family history of Lynch syndrome (increased genetic risk) are at high risk of developing endometrial carcinoma.
Endometrial atypical hyperplasia is a precursor of carcinoma endometrium, with 25–45% ultimately developing malignancy. Atypical hyperplasia consists of glands that are crowded (>50% gland to stromal ration) and appear disorganized and have luminal outpouching with mitosis.
The World Health Organization Classification of 2014 has two categories for endometrial hyperplasia, which are hyperplasia without atypia (non-neoplastic) and atypical hyperplasia (endometrial intraepithelial neoplasm).
The Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia Classification proposed in 2000 defines two classes of endometrial changes being benign endometrial hyperplasia (non-neoplastic) and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN). Studies show that EIN and WHO classification system were similarly effective for prediction of progression of hyperplasia to endometrial carcinoma.1,2
Using the WHO classification, the presence of nuclear atypia in endometrial hyperplasia is the most important indicator for the risk of coexisting carcinoma.3
Hence, women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia on endometrial biopsy require further evaluation and intervention.
AIM AND OBJECTIVE
To analyze the prevalence of concurrent carcinoma in patients identified with endometrial hyperplasia with atypia in our institute.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This is a prospective observational study undertaken in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research.
About 70 patients identified with “hyperplasia with atypia,” diagnosed through endometrial aspiration or hysteroscopic-guided biopsy for various menstrual-related complaints, such as abnormal uterine bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, and thickened endometrium inappropriate for age identified on pelvic scan were observed from June 2017 to June 2019.
Age, BMI, parity, comorbid conditions, medical history, clinical symptoms, and trans vaginal sonogram (TVS) reports were collected of these 70 patients in a set pro forma. Patients were advised MRI abdomen, pelvis, and subsequently hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with or without staging laparotomy and the final histopathology report analyzed to identify the incidence of concurrent malignancy (Tables 1 to 11).
|Abnormal uterine bleeding||37||52.8|
In our institute, we observed that majority of patients (59, 84%) were in the menopausal age. Total 3 of 70 (4.3%) were nulliparous and 95.7% (67) were multiparous. Abnormal uterine bleeding was the most common symptom in the reproductive and perimenopausal age group (52.8%), with postmenopausal bleeding being the presenting symptom in the postmenopausal age group (34.28%). Out of the 70 patients, 1 patient opted for observant management in view of advanced age with multiple associated comorbid conditions. Of the 69, who underwent surgery for hyperplasia with atypia, 68 (97.1%) had staging laparotomy, whereas 1 patient (1.4%) underwent total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.
|Ca endometrium stage IA||7||10|
|Ca endometrium stage IB||5||7.1|
|Ca endometrium stage IIA||3||4.3|
|Ca endometrium stage IIB||2||2.8|
|Ca endometrium stage III||1||1.4|
|Ca endometrium stage IV||1||1.4|
|Histopathology grading||Number (51)||Percentage|
|Ca endometrium stage IA||19||37.2|
|Ca endometrium stage IB||14||27.4|
|Ca endometrium stage IIA||7||13.7|
|Ca endometrium stage IIB||2||3.9|
|Ca endometrium stage III||–||–|
|Ca endometrium stage IV||–||–|
|TAH with BSO||1||1.4|
|Endometrial Ca (NOS)||28||40|
|Papillary serous Ca||4||5.7|
|Downgraded to non-neoplasia||9||12.9|
The final histopathology was reported according to FIGO staging, which showed endometrial carcinoma (not otherwise specified) in 28 patients (40%) and endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma in 21 patients (30%). Seven patients had serous carcinoma (10%). Only one (1.4%) patient had carcinosarcoma and four patients had papillary serous-type carcinoma (5.7%). The remaining nine (12.9%) patients who had hyperplasia with atypia were downgraded to other non-neoplastic lesions in the final histopathology report.
Of the four patients with papillary serous carcinoma, two patients had concurrent Ca ovary with histopathology showing papillary serous carcinoma of ovary.
One patient with serous carcinoma of endometrium had additional lymphovascular extension and one patient with endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma showed positive for microvascular residual tumor.
Of the 28 patients with endometrial carcinoma—not otherwise specified—14 (50%), had FIGO stage IA, well-differentiated carcinoma, with 8 (28.5%) patients having FIGO stage IB. Seven patients (25%) had FIGO stage II, and two (7%) had FIGO stage III.
In 21 patients with final histopathology report of endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 17 (81%) had FIGO stage I and 4 (19%) FIGO stage II.
Except for two patients, all other patients had grade I well-differentiated carcinomas.
Endometrial carcinoma is most commonly seen in the 40–60 age group and we found a similar result in our study. Though it is reported to be two to four times more common in nulliparous women, or in women with unopposed estrogen, in our study majority of the patients were multiparas.4–6
Endometrial carcinoma risk is increased 1.5 times in overweight patients and 2.5 times in obese patients and in our study we found most of the patients were in overweight and obese group accounting to 30.2 and 48.5%.7
Diabetes mellitus is associated with a modest increase in endometrial cancer risk and in our study we found that 35.41% patients were diabetic.8
Though there is inconclusive evidence between familial association between breast and endometrial cancer,9 we observed 2 patients of 70 (2.85%) with first-degree relatives with breast cancer and 1 patient of 70 (1.42%) with family history of colorectal cancer in first-degree relative.
About 3–5% endometrial cancers can be attributed to Lynch syndrome.10 In our study, we found two patients having concurrent ovarian malignancy, but genetic workup of the patients was not done.
Worldwide, the risk of an underlying malignancy ranges from 25 to 43% in a patient identified with hyperplasia with atypia.11 In our study, we observed that the incidence of underlying malignancy in patients with endometrial hyperplasia with atypia was 88.4%, which is twice the rate prevalent worldwide. The associated risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity could be attributed to this increased progression in our study population.
The prognosis for stage IA, grade I is good.12 In our study population, we found majority of women to have stage I carcinoma (60.5%).
Trimble et al. in his study observed that endometrial adenocarcinoma was the most common underlying malignancy in patients identified with hyperplasia with atypia. However, in our study population we observed that endometrial carcinoma (not otherwise specified) is slightly more common that adenocarcinoma endometrium.3
Hyperplasia with atypia, when diagnosed, should be evaluated further with higher imaging modalities so that concurrent counseling regarding appropriate surgery can be given.
1. Lacey Jr JV, Mutter GL, Nucci MR, et al. Risk of subsequent endometrial carcinoma associated with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classification of endometrial biopsies. Cancer 2008;113(8):2073–2081. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23808.
2. Baak JP, Mutter GL, Robboy S, et al. The molecular genetics and morphometry-based endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classification system predicts disease progression in endometrial hyperplasia more accurately than the 1994 World Health Organization classification system. Cancer 2005;103(11):2304–2312. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21058.
3. Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R, et al. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer 2006;106(4):812–819. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21650.
4. Lax SF. Molecular genetic pathways in various types of endometrial carcinoma: from a phenotypical to a molecular-based classification. Virchows Arch 2004;444(3):213–223. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-003-0947-3.
6. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Redmond CK, et al. Endometrial cancer in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients; findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-14. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86(7):527–537. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/86.7.527.
9. Kazerouni N, Schairer C, Friedman HB, et al. Family history of breast cancer as a determinant of the risk of developing endometrial cancer: a nationwide cohort study. J Med Genet 2002;39(11):826–832. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.39.11.826.
10. American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: hereditary colorectal cancer and genetic testing. Gastroenterology 2001;121(1):195–197. DOI: 10.1053/gast.2001.25580.
11. Rakha E, Wong SC, Soomro I, et al. Clinical outcome of atypical endometrial hyperplasia diagnosed on an endometrial biopsy: institutional experience and review of literature. Am J Surg Pathol 2012;36(11):1683–1690. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31825dd4ff.
12. Bergeron C, Nogales FF, Masseroli M, et al. A multicentric european study testing the reproducibility of the WHO classification of endometrial hyperplasia with a proposal of a simplified working classification for biopsy for curettage specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 1999;22(9):1012–1019. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-199909000-00014.
© The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.