Display options
Cite
Fadare O, Zheng W, Crispens MA, et al. Morphologic and other clinicopathologic features of endometrial clear cell carcinoma: a comprehensive analysis of 50 rigorously classified cases. Am J Cancer Res. 2013;3(1):70-95
Fadare, O., Zheng, W., Crispens, M. A., Jones, H. W., Khabele, D., Gwin, K., Liang, S. X., Mohammed, K., Desouki, M. M., Parkash, V., & Hecht, J. L. (2013). Morphologic and other clinicopathologic features of endometrial clear cell carcinoma: a comprehensive analysis of 50 rigorously classified cases. American journal of cancer research, 3(1), 70-95.
Fadare, Oluwole, et al. "Morphologic and other clinicopathologic features of endometrial clear cell carcinoma: a comprehensive analysis of 50 rigorously classified cases." American journal of cancer research vol. 3,1 (2013): 70-95.
Fadare O, Zheng W, Crispens MA, Jones HW, Khabele D, Gwin K, Liang SX, Mohammed K, Desouki MM, Parkash V, Hecht JL. Morphologic and other clinicopathologic features of endometrial clear cell carcinoma: a comprehensive analysis of 50 rigorously classified cases. Am J Cancer Res. 2013;3(1):70-95. Epub 2013 Jan 18. PMID: 23359866; PMCID: PMC3555196.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Am J Cancer Res. 2013;3(1):70-95. Epub 2013 Jan 18.

Morphologic and other clinicopathologic features of endometrial clear cell carcinoma: a comprehensive analysis of 50 rigorously classified cases.

American journal of cancer research

Oluwole Fadare, Wenxin Zheng, Marta A Crispens, Howard W Iii Jones, Dineo Khabele, Katja Gwin, Sharon X Liang, Khaled Mohammed, Mohamed M Desouki, Vinita Parkash, Jonathan L Hecht

Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville, TN, USA ; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville, TN, USA.

PMID: 23359866 PMCID: PMC3555196

Abstract

Clear cell carcinoma of the endometrium (CCC) is an uncommon histotype whose analyses have generally been hampered by its rarity and issues of interobserver diagnostic variability. In this study, we analyzed the clinicopathologic features of 50 CCCs that were assembled from multiple institutions and which we considered to be morphologically unambiguous after a rigorous review process for diagnostic accuracy. Forty-four (88%) of the 50 CCC cases showed an admixture of the classic architectural patterns (glandular, papillary, solid and cystic in decreasing order of prevalence). Mitotic indices were variable but were generally low: 60% of cases had a mitotic index of 3 or lower. The predominant cell type lining glands and papillae was invariably hobnail and/or cuboidal. Stratification of nuclei (greater than 3 cells) or columnar cells on glands and papillae were uncommon and never diffusely present. 82% of cases showed an admixture of polygonal cells with clear and eosinophilic cytoplasm; only clear cells were present in 4% and only eosinophilic cells were present in 10%. Hobnail cells were common, being identifiable in 86% of cases, and being diffuse in 60%. Only 2 cases had a predominance of nuclear grade 3 cells. Psammoma, hyaline and targetoid bodies were identified in 32%, 52% and 20% of cases respectively. Clear cell endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma was identified in 41.7% of cases with evaluable background endometrium. The 5-year progression free survival (PFS) for the entire cohort was 61%, and was 88%, 75%, 22% and 28.6% for stages I to IV respectively. On univariate analyses, age >65 years, advanced FIGO stage, and the presence of any lymph node metastases were associated with reduced PFS (p=0.02, 0.002, and 0.002 respectively). On multivariate analyses, the only variable associated with reduced PFS was age >65 years. The 5-year overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 78%, and was 94%, 87.5%, 66.7%, and 42.8% for stages I to IV respectively. On univariate analyses, the following factors were associated with reduced OS: age >65 years (p=0.04), advanced FIGO stage (p=0.003), distant metastases (p=0.003), myometrial invasion >30% (p=0.01), a mitotic index >4 (p=0.014), and a specific architectural pattern (at least 10% of the tumor composed of solid masses or individual infiltrating tumor cells, p=0.02). On multivariate analyses, only age >65 years and advanced stage were associated with reduced OS (p=0.023 and 0.022 respectively). In summary, endometrial CCC has a wide morphologic spectrum that is detailed and illustrated herein, but also has core cytoarchitectural features that are of high diagnostic utility. Morphologically unambiguous CCC apparently have patient outcomes that are more favorable than has previously been reported, indicating that ambiguous tumors should be classified separately. The existence of morphologically ambiguous clear-cell rich carcinomas that do not fit the conventional histotypic groupings, is a likely reflection of the biologic complexity of endometrial carcinomas in general; these cases should be reported descriptively, and studied separately from conventional CCC.

Keywords: Clear cell carcinoma; endometrium; morphologic features

References

  1. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011 Jan;35(1):36-44 - PubMed
  2. Diagn Pathol. 2008 Feb 08;3:6 - PubMed
  3. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2012 Dec;20(6):580-7 - PubMed
  4. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1991;10(1):67-78 - PubMed
  5. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 Jan-Feb;62(1):10-29 - PubMed
  6. Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Mar;92(3):744-51 - PubMed
  7. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1989;8(2):85-96 - PubMed
  8. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2010 Nov;27(4):261-73 - PubMed
  9. Am J Clin Pathol. 1990 Sep;94(3):247-54 - PubMed
  10. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1995 Jan;14(1):30-8 - PubMed
  11. Cancer. 1976 Feb;37(2):872-82 - PubMed
  12. Oncogene. 2013 Jan 24;32(4):403-13 - PubMed
  13. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Nov;95 Suppl 1:S105-43 - PubMed
  14. Br J Cancer. 2006 Mar 13;94(5):642-6 - PubMed
  15. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2012 Mar;31(2):116-24 - PubMed
  16. N Engl J Med. 2010 Oct 14;363(16):1532-43 - PubMed
  17. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Nov;115(2):244-8 - PubMed
  18. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Oct;103(1):87-93 - PubMed
  19. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Jun;156(6):1486-91 - PubMed
  20. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Apr 1;55(5):1272-6 - PubMed
  21. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jul;126(1):16-9 - PubMed
  22. Gynecol Oncol. 1989 Nov;35(2):199-203 - PubMed
  23. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011 May;35(5):633-46 - PubMed
  24. Cancer. 1996 Oct 15;78(8):1740-7 - PubMed
  25. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003 Oct;83 Suppl 1:79-118 - PubMed
  26. J Pathol. 2011 Jul;224(3):328-33 - PubMed
  27. Hum Pathol. 2005 Nov;36(11):1163-7 - PubMed
  28. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004 Nov;128(11):e157-8 - PubMed
  29. Am J Surg Pathol. 1995 Jul;19(7):769-74 - PubMed
  30. Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Dec;95(3):593-6 - PubMed
  31. Gynecol Oncol. 1991 Mar;40(3):207-17 - PubMed
  32. Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi. 1996 May;48(5):328-34 - PubMed
  33. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012 Jun;36(6):799-807 - PubMed
  34. Adv Anat Pathol. 2004 May;11(3):117-42 - PubMed
  35. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Oct;111(1):35-40 - PubMed
  36. Adv Anat Pathol. 2011 Nov;18(6):454-65 - PubMed
  37. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Feb;108(2):293-7 - PubMed
  38. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012 Aug;36(8):1107-18 - PubMed
  39. Lancet. 2000 Apr 22;355(9213):1404-11 - PubMed
  40. Cancer. 1982 Apr 15;49(8):1511-23 - PubMed
  41. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 May;113(2):277-83 - PubMed
  42. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2011 Sep;30(5):431-41 - PubMed
  43. J Oncol. 2011;2011:628084 - PubMed
  44. Cancer. 1979 Apr;43(4):1448-56 - PubMed
  45. Cancer. 1973 May;31(5):1127-40 - PubMed
  46. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 Dec;30(12):1519-30 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support