Atypical endometrial hyperplasia: grounds for possible misdiagnosis of endometrial adenocarcinoma.
OBJECTIVE
The diagnoses of atypical hyperplasia and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma imply totally different approaches because of clinical and patient-oriented ramifications, especially when morphological differences are not entirely conclusive. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia during curettage or endometrial biopsy and the definitive histological findings from hysterectomy material.


METHODS
23 patients were found fit for the current study and subsequently their clinical histories were reviewed for relevant clinical data, histopathological profiling and type of therapeutic interventions.


RESULTS
Adenocarcinoma was observed in 12 (52.17%) of 23 hysterectomy cases. The hyperplasia was found in 10 (43.47%) cases, although 4 of them lacked atypia and 1 case proved to be hyperplasia-free.


CONCLUSIONS
Hysterectomy was prescribed as the next step in the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Other wait-and-see approaches could have easily forfeited the chances of providing an adequate treatment for an operable and curable cancer in approximately half of the studied cases.
Valenzuela
Pedro
P
Servicio de Obstetricia y Ginecología Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias, Madrid, España. itallon@alerce.pntic.mec.es
Sanz
J Miguel
JM
Keller
Jerry
J
D000230:Adenocarcinoma / Q000473:pathology*; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001706:Biopsy; D003475:Curettage; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D004714:Endometrial Hyperplasia / Q000473:pathology*; D016889:Endometrial Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007044:Hysterectomy; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging