AMOUNT OF PREOPERATIVE ENDOMETRIAL TISSUE 41 2 22. Sany O, Singh K, Jha S. Correlation between preoperative endometrial sampling and final endometrial cancer histology. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2012;33(2):142-4. 23. Gilks CB, Oliva E, Soslow RA. Poor interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(6):874-81. 24. Han G, Sidhu D, Duggan MA, Arseneau J, Cesari M, Clement PB, et al. Reproducibility of histological cell type in high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(12):1594-604. 25. Nielsen AL, Thomsen HK, Nyholm HC. 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. Cancer. 1991;68(10):2303-9. 26. Visser NCM, van der Wurff AAM, IntHout J, Reijnen C, Dabir PD, Soltani GG, et al. Improving preoperative diagnosis in endometrial cancer using systematic morphological assessment and a small immunohistochemical panel. Hum Pathol. 2021. 27. Piulats JM, Guerra E, Gil-Martín M, Roman-Canal B, Gatius S, Sanz-Pamplona R, et al. Molecular approaches for classifying endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145(1):200-7. 28. Bosse T, Nout RA, McAlpine JN, McConechy MK, Britton H, Hussein YR, et al. Molecular Classification of Grade 3 Endometrioid Endometrial Cancers Identifies Distinct Prognostic Subgroups. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018;42(5):561-8. 29. Demirkiran F, Yavuz E, Erenel H, Bese T, Arvas M, Sanioglu C. Which is the best technique for endometrial sampling? Aspiration (pipelle) versus dilatation and curettage (D&C). Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(5):1277-82. 30. Quddus MR, Sung CJ, Zhang C, Lawrence WD. Minor serous and clear cell components adversely affect prognosis in ‘’mixed-type’’ endometrial carcinomas: a clinicopathologic study of 36 stage-I cases. Reprod Sci. 2010;17(7):673-8. 31. Octeau D, Abitbol J, Amajoud Z, Laskov I, Ferenczy A, Pelmus M, et al. Targeted sequencing of histologically defined serous endometrial cancer reflects prognosis and correlates with preoperative biopsy. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019;30:100521. 32. Gatius S, Matias-Guiu X. Practical issues in the diagnosis of serous carcinoma of the endometrium. Mod Pathol. 2016;29 Suppl 1:S45-58. 33. Goksedef BP, Akbayir O, Corbacioglu A, Guraslan H, Sencan F, Erol O, et al. Comparison of preoperative endometrial biopsy grade and final pathologic diagnosis in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2012;13(2):106-10. 34. Hu S, Hinson JL, Matnani R, Cibull ML, Karabakhtsian RG. Are the uterine serous carcinomas underdiagnosed? Histomorphologic and immunohistochemical correlates and clinical follow up in high-grade endometrial carcinomas initially diagnosed as high-grade endometrioid carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2018;31(2):358-64. 35. Garg K, Soslow RA. Strategies for distinguishing low-grade endometrioid and serous carcinomas of endometrium. Adv Anat Pathol. 2012;19(1):1-10. 36. Darvishian F, Hummer AJ, Thaler HT, Bhargava R, Linkov I, Asher M, et al. Serous endometrial cancers that mimic endometrioid adenocarcinomas: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of a group of problematic cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(12):1568-78. 37. Lax SF, Kurman RJ, Pizer ES, Wu L, Ronnett BM. A binary architectural grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma has superior reproducibility compared with FIGO grading and identifies subsets of advance-stage tumors with favorable and unfavorable prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(9):1201-8. 38. Taylor RR, Zeller J, Lieberman RW, O’Connor DM. An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;74(1):3-6. 39. Vrede SW, van Weelden WJ, Visser NCM, Bulten J, van der Putten LJM, van de Vijver K, et al. Immunohistochemical biomarkers are prognostic relevant in addition to the ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO risk classification in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(3):787-94.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw