Ayşe Deniz Ertürk Coşkun

Glandular Crowdings in Endometrial Polyps: Clinical Follow-Up and Possible Worrisome Features

Introduction Interpretation of changes and premalignant lesions in endometrial polyps can be challenging. We evaluated the clinical course of patients with focal gland crowdings in endometrial polyps via repeat biopsies and searched for possible morphological findings in the initial biopsy that may foresee a premalignant course. Methods Specimens diagnosed as endometrial polyp and focal gland crowding in patients who had a repeat biopsy in a 1-year period were reexamined. Morphological findings in the initial biopsies were recorded. The group whose repeat biopsies were “premalignant or malignant” (Group 1), and the group with “benign” repeat biopsies (Group 2) were compared. Results “Endometrial polyp and gland crowdings” was diagnosed in 115 specimens of which 38 patients had repeat biopsies. Among these 8 (21%) were diagnosed as “endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN)” (Group 1) and 30 (79%) as “benign” (Group 2). Morphological features in the initial biopsies were evaluated; PAX2 loss was 6 of 8 (75%) for Group 1 and 7 of 30 (23%) for Group 2 ( P = .020), and altered epithelial cytological features were present in 5 of 8 (62%) versus 4 of 30 (13%) ( P = .015), both significantly higher in Group 1. Dark intraluminal secretion, intraluminal histiocytes, intraglandular epithelial proliferation, and mean diameter of crowded gland areas were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Conclusion “Focal gland crowdings” in endometrial polyps do carry a risk of EIN in subsequent biopsies. We suggest that the loss/decrease of PAX2 and altered epithelial cytological features in these areas in the initial biopsy are indicative of a premalignant course.

Comparison of nonspecific inflammatory markers in endometrial cancer and hyperplasia

This study aims to analyze inflammatory markers among patients with endometrial cancer, hyperplasia with atypia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, hyperplasia without atypia, and normal controls, thus observing the stage at which inflammation becomes the most significant. A total of 444 patients who had endometrial sampling were included in the study (endometrial cancer, n=79; endometrial hyperplasia with atypia/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, n=27; endometrial hyperplasia without atypia, n=238; and normal controls, n=100). Neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, platelet count, platelet distribution width, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, platelet/lymphocyte ratio, CA-125, and endometrial thickness of the patients were recorded. Comparing the groups for neutrophil count, the hyperplasia with atypia group had higher values compared with both the hyperplasia without atypia group and the control group (p=0.003). When compared for the lymphocyte count, the hyperplasia with atypia group had lower values compared with the control group (p=0.014). Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio of the hyperplasia with atypia group was higher than all other groups, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio of the cancer group was higher than the control group (p=0.001). Platelet count, mean platelet volume, platelet distribution width, and platelet/lymphocyte ratio values were not significantly different among groups (p>0.05). Considering the inflammatory markers, the most prominent result was that the hyperplasia with atypia group had neutrophilia, lymphopenia, and increased neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio compared with other groups.