The utility of the revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics histologic grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma using a defined nuclear grading system. A gynecologic oncology group study

Background. The histologic grade of endometrial adenocarcinoma is related to the aggressiveness of the tumor and probability of death from disease. However, the ideal system for assignment of histologic grade remains controversial. In 1988, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) revised its recommendations for grading typical endometrial adenocarcinoma, such that grade is determined primarily by the architecture of the tumor and secondarily modified in the presence of “notable nuclear atypia”; this phrase, however, has never been defined, and therefore the prognostic validity of this system is unknown.

[1]  E L Kaplan.  NON-PARAMETRIC ESTIMATION FROM INCOMPLETE OBSERVATION , 1958 .

[2]  W. Christopherson,et al.  Carcinoma of the endometrium V. An analysis of prognosticators in patients with favorable subtypes and stage I disease , 1983, Cancer.

[3]  P. Schwartz,et al.  Architectural (FIGO) grading, nuclear grading, and other prognostic indicators in stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma with identification of high‐risk and low‐risk groups , 1988, Cancer.

[4]  B. Bundy,et al.  Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer: A gynecologic oncology group study , 1987, Cancer.

[5]  E. Kaplan,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations , 1958 .

[6]  A. L. Nielsen,et al.  Evaluation of the reproducibility of the revised 1988 international federation of gynecology and obstetrics grading system of endometrial cancers with special emphasis on nuclear grading , 1991, Cancer.

[7]  D. Herbold,et al.  The significance of squamous differentiation in endometrial carcinoma. Data from a gynecologic oncology group study , 1991, Cancer.

[8]  H. Homesley,et al.  Determinants of Survival of Surgically Staged Patients With Endometrial Carcinoma Histologically Confined to the Uterus: Implications for Therapy , 1992, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  R. Kurman,et al.  Relationship between surgical-pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: A gynecologic oncology group study , 1991 .

[10]  J. H. Austin,et al.  Indicators of prognosis in carcinoma of the corpus uteri. , 1969, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.

[11]  R. Zaino,et al.  The prognostic value of nuclear versus architectural grading in endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. , 1994, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.