title: Microscopic lesions of fallopian tubes in endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium: How effective are the macroscopic tubal sampling techniques?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Extrauterine involvement of endometrial carcinoma has a significant effect on the patients' prognosis and treatment decision. In classical method, macroscopic section is taken from the fallopian tube sparing the fimbrial ends. Fimbrial end of fallopian tube may be involved by tumors and precursor lesions. This study aims to determine the importance of sampling of fimbrial ends of fallopian tube in endometrioid endometrial carcinoma specimens.
  
  
  METHODS
  We reevaluated the fallopian tubes of 200 cases of endometrioid endometrial carcinoma cases that have no macroscopic tubal lesion. A hundred cases were sampled with classical method, and the other 100 were sampled with a new method that includes the fimbrial ends. Statistical difference was examined by Fisher's exact test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No microscopic tubal lesion lesion was detected in cases that were sampled with the classical method. In contrast, there were 4 cases with tubal lesions in patients sampled with the new technique; 3 of them were located in the fimbrial end. Of the 3, there was one microscopic invasive carcinoma and two proliferative endometrial glandular lesions. Endometriosis was detected in two of the 4 cases with tubal lesions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Including the fimbrial end of fallopian tube to macroscopic sampling could detect more tubal lesions, which might provide additional prognostic and pathogenetic information of endometrioid endometrial carcinoma.
authors: Department of Pathology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
authors: Ibrahim
authors: I
authors: Kulac
authors: Alp
authors: A
authors: Usubutun
keywords: Endometrial neoplasms; Endometrioid carcinoma; Endometriosis; Fallopian tube
references: Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2011 Jan;30(1):12-21
references: 21131839
references: Am J Surg Pathol. 2009 Mar;33(3):376-83
references: 19011565
references: Am J Surg Pathol. 2010 Mar;34(3):433-43
references: 20154587
references: Am J Surg Pathol. 2011 Nov;35(11):1605-14
references: 21997682
references: J Pathol. 2012 Feb;226(3):421-6
references: 21990067
references: Hum Reprod Update. 2006 Jan-Feb;12(1):77-89
references: 16172112
references: Adv Anat Pathol. 2007 Jul;14(4):241-60
references: 17592255
references: Gynecol Oncol. 1996 Dec;63(3):371-8
references: 8946874
references: Gynecol Oncol. 1984 Jul;18(3):359-72
references: 6745733
references: Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 Feb;30(2):230-6
references: 16434898
references: Lancet. 2012 Apr 7;379(9823):1352-60
references: 22444602
references: Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1997 Jul;16(3):189-96
references: 9421082
references: Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 Jul;30(7):844-9
references: 16819326
references: Hum Reprod. 2011 Nov;26(11):2918-24
references: 21849300
references: Am J Surg Pathol. 2010 Oct;34(10):1407-16
references: 20861711
references: Gynecol Oncol. 1989 Jun;33(3):335-9
references: 2722060