Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN): will it bring order to chaos? The Endometrial Collaborative Group.

The diagnosis of precancerous lesions of the endometrium remains unstandardized because existing World Health Organization classification categories do not correspond to distinctive biologic groups and are inadequately supported by reproducible histopathologic criteria. A group of gynecologic pathologists was convened to consider revised diagnostic classification and criteria based on newly available information. We propose the terms endometrial hyperplasia (EH), endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN), and adenocarcinoma to define distinctive subgroups that are functionally relevant to clinical management of patients with endometrial disease. Endometrial precancers are collectively designated EIN in recognition of their monoclonal growth. At present there is no effective strategy for constructive subdivision of EIN lesions into grades or subgroups. EIN is to be distinguished from adenocarcinoma and the diffuse hormonal changes of EH seen in anovulation. An archive of genetically and morphologically classified endometrial precancers at www.endometrium.org provides a resource for centralized review of the histopathology of EIN lesions. A new architectural criterion for EIN diagnosis, diminution of stromal volume to less than approximately half of the total sample volume, will also assist in discriminating between EH and EIN. Implementation of this proposal will bring diagnostic terminology into agreement with current concepts of premalignant endometrial disease and facilitate more uniform patient management.

[1]  C. Crum,et al.  Pitfalls in the diagnosis of endometrial neoplasia. , 1984, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  G. Mutter,et al.  Allelotype mapping of unstable microsatellites establishes direct lineage continuity between endometrial precancers and cancer. , 1996, Cancer research.

[3]  R M Richart,et al.  Endometrial precancer diagnosis by histopathology, clonal analysis, and computerized morphometry , 2000, The Journal of pathology.

[4]  M. Masseroli,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 and curettage specimens. , 1999, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[5]  R. Kurman,et al.  The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia. A long‐term study of “untreated” hyperplasia in 170 patients , 1985 .

[6]  G. Mutter,et al.  Uteri of women with endometrial carcinoma contain a histopathological spectrum of monoclonal putative precancers, some with microsatellite instability. , 1996, Cancer research.

[7]  A. Ferenczy,et al.  The cytodynamics of endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma. A review. , 1983, Annales de pathologie.

[8]  Kathleen R. Cho,et al.  Reproducibility of the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and well-differentiated carcinoma. , 1998, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[9]  H. Fox,et al.  The endometrial hyperplasias and their relationship to endometrial neoplasia * , 1982, Histopathology.

[10]  P D Bezemer,et al.  Architectural and nuclear morphometrical features together are more important prognosticators in endometrial hyperplasias than nuclear morphometrical features alone , 1988, The Journal of pathology.

[11]  S. Brown,et al.  The precursors of endometrial carcinoma. , 1979, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.