Advertisement
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 36, Issue 5, Pages 555-561 (May 2005)


View previous. 18 of 28 View next.

Lack of PTEN expression in endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia is correlated with cancer progression

Jan Pieter Albert Baak, MD, FRCPathacdCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Bianca van Diermen, MSca, Anita Steinbakk, MDab, Emiel Janssen, MSca, Ivar Skaland, MSca, George L. Mutter, MDe, Bent Fiane, MDb, Kjell Løvslett, MDb

Received 1 February 2005; accepted 15 February 2005.

Summary 

We tested the hypothesis that PTEN inactivation may stratify cancer progression risk among putative endometrial hyperplasias, classified prognostically by means of the morphometric D score (DS). The DS, calculated from 3 morphometric variables measured in routine hematoxylin-eosin–stained endometrial biopsy slides, is the most sensitive and specific method of endometrial cancer risk prediction currently available. Clinical outcomes of 103 women with endometrial hyperplasia on biopsy were tallied according to the DS. Seven (7/103; 7%) patients with carcinoma during follow-up were all distributed within the high-risk prognostic group (ie, DS <1 = endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia [EIN]) (7/21; 33% progression). None of the 82 cases with a DS higher than 1 progressed. All cases that progressed were PTEN null, indicating that this genotype is capable of further stratifying cancer progression risk in hyperplasias irrespective of histological categorization. However, only 16% of the PTEN-null cases progressed. When PTEN expression pattern was combined with EIN, the prognostic power was greatly increased (specificity from 63% for PTEN and 85% for EIN to 93% when combined; positive predictive value from 16% and 33% to 50%). We conclude that loss of PTEN expression is the first biomarker in EIN that increases the accuracy of the prognostic DS to predict cancer progression risk. Unless endometrial hyperplasias are stratified by histological morphometric D-Score, PTEN has a low positive predictive value.

a Department of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, N-4011 Stavanger, Norway

b Department of Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, N-5021 Stavanger, Norway

c Gades Institute, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

d Free University, 4007AM Amsterdam, The Netherlands

e Department of Pathology, The Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, 02115 USA

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, 4068 Stavanger, Norway.

PII: S0046-8177(05)00087-0

doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2005.02.018


View previous. 18 of 28 View next.

Advertisement