Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Clinical Pathology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Pathology
. 2000 Sep;53(9):697–703. doi: 10.1136/jcp.53.9.697

Computerised morphometrical analysis in endometrial hyperplasia for the prediction of cancer development. A long term retrospective study from northern Norway

A Orbo 1, J Baak 1, I Kleivan 1, S Lysne 1, P Prytz 1, M Broeckaert 1, A Slappendel 1, H Tichelaar 1
PMCID: PMC1731244  PMID: 11041060

Abstract

Aims—To evaluate and compare the long term prognostic value of the WHO classification and the computerised multivariate morphometrical D score in endometrial hyperplasia. To test the reproducibility of the D score in two different centres.

Methods—Histopathological WHO classification and computerised morphometrical analysis using the D score (< 0, high risk; > 1, low risk; 0–1, uncertain) in a population based study from northern Norway of archival dilatation and curettage material from 68 women with 10–20 years of follow up.

Results—Of the 68 patients included in the study, 18 developed cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of the D score (< 0 v > 1) were 100% and 78%, respectively, which was better than the WHO classification (89% and 60%, respectively). The negative and positive predictive values for the D score were 100% and 58% and of the WHO classification 94% and 44%, respectively. This study found a slightly higher specificity for the D score than former retrospective studies, but otherwise the results were comparable. The D score results were reproducible between the two centres (R = 0.91; slope = 0.98; intercept = 0.3).

Conclusions—D score assessment is a reproducible and more accurate predictor of outcome of endometrial hyperplasia than the WHO classification assessed by an experienced gynaecological pathologist. Routine application of the D score might reduce over and undertreatment of endometrial hyperplasia.

Key Words: endometrial hyperplasia • cancer • image analysis • prognostic classification rule

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (126.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ausems E. W., van der Kamp J. K., Baak J. P. Nuclear morphometry in the determination of the prognosis of marked atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1985;4(3):180–185. doi: 10.1097/00004347-198509000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baak J. P. Further evaluation of the practical applicability of nuclear morphometry for the prediction of the outcome of atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1986 Mar;8(1):46–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baak J. P., Ladekarl M., Sørensen F. B. Reproducibility of mean nuclear volume and correlation with mean nuclear area in breast cancer: an investigation of various sampling schemes. Hum Pathol. 1994 Jan;25(1):80–85. doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(94)90175-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baak J. P., Langley F. A., Talerman A., Delemarre J. F. The prognostic variability of ovarian tumor grading by different pathologists. Gynecol Oncol. 1987 Jun;27(2):166–172. doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(87)90289-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baak J. P., Nauta J. J., Wisse-Brekelmans E. C., Bezemer P. D. Architectural and nuclear morphometrical features together are more important prognosticators in endometrial hyperplasias than nuclear morphometrical features alone. J Pathol. 1988 Apr;154(4):335–341. doi: 10.1002/path.1711540409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Baak J. P. The role of computerized morphometric and cytometric feature analysis in endometrial hyperplasia and cancer prognosis. J Cell Biochem Suppl. 1995;23:137–146. doi: 10.1002/jcb.240590918. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Baak J. P., Wisse-Brekelmans E. C., Fleege J. C., van der Putten H. W., Bezemer P. D. Assessment of the risk on endometrial cancer in hyperplasia, by means of morphological and morphometrical features. Pathol Res Pract. 1992 Oct;188(7):856–859. doi: 10.1016/S0344-0338(11)80244-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Baak J.P.A., Kuik D.J., Bezemer P.D. The additional prognostic value of morphometric nuclear arrangement and DNA-ploidy to other morphometric and stereologic features in endometrial hyperplasias. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1994 Sep;4(5):289–297. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1438.1994.04050289.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergeron C., Nogales F. F., Masseroli M., Abeler V., Duvillard P., Müller-Holzner E., Pickartz H., Wells M. A multicentric European study testing the reproducibility of the WHO classification of endometrial hyperplasia with a proposal of a simplified working classification for biopsy and curettage specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999 Sep;23(9):1102–1108. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199909000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Colgan T. J., Norris H. J., Foster W., Kurman R. J., Fox C. H. Predicting the outcome of endometrial hyperplasia by quantitative analysis of nuclear features using a linear discriminant function. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1983;1(4):347–352. doi: 10.1097/00004347-198301040-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dunton C. J., Baak J. P., Palazzo J. P., van Diest P. J., McHugh M., Widra E. A. Use of computerized morphometric analyses of endometrial hyperplasias in the prediction of coexistent cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 May;174(5):1518–1521. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70599-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferenczy A., Gelfand M. M., Tzipris F. The cytodynamics of endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma. A review. Ann Pathol. 1983 Sep;3(3):189–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fitch M. I., Gray R. E., Covens A., Thomas G., Franssen E., DePetrillo D., Rosen B. Gynecologists' perspectives regarding ovarian cancer. Cancer Prev Control. 1999 Feb;3(1):68–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Grimes D. A. Diagnostic dilation and curettage: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Jan 1;142(1):1–6. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(16)32276-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jovanovic A. S., Boynton K. A., Mutter G. L. Uteri of women with endometrial carcinoma contain a histopathological spectrum of monoclonal putative precancers, some with microsatellite instability. Cancer Res. 1996 Apr 15;56(8):1917–1921. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kurman R. J., Kaminski P. F., Norris H. J. The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia. A long-term study of "untreated" hyperplasia in 170 patients. Cancer. 1985 Jul 15;56(2):403–412. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19850715)56:2<403::aid-cncr2820560233>3.0.co;2-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Michael H., Kotylo P. K., Mohr M., Roth L. M. DNA ploidy, cell cycle kinetics, and low versus high grade atypia in endometrial hyperplasia. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996 Jul;106(1):22–28. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/106.1.22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mutter G. L., Baak J. P., Crum C. P., Richart R. M., Ferenczy A., Faquin W. C. Endometrial precancer diagnosis by histopathology, clonal analysis, and computerized morphometry. J Pathol. 2000 Mar;190(4):462–469. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(200003)190:4<462::AID-PATH590>3.0.CO;2-D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Mutter G. L., Boynton K. A., Faquin W. C., Ruiz R. E., Jovanovic A. S. Allelotype mapping of unstable microsatellites establishes direct lineage continuity between endometrial precancers and cancer. Cancer Res. 1996 Oct 1;56(19):4483–4486. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mutter G. L., Boynton K. A. X chromosome inactivation in the normal female genital tract: implications for identification of neoplasia. Cancer Res. 1995 Nov 1;55(21):5080–5084. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Norris H. J., Becker R. L., Mikel U. V. A comparative morphometric and cytophotometric study of endometrial hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and endometrial carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 1989 Mar;20(3):219–223. doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(89)90127-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Winkler B., Alvarez S., Richart R. M., Crum C. P. Pitfalls in the diagnosis of endometrial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Aug;64(2):185–194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Pathology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES