abstract
The pathologic detection of microscopic omental metastases is important
for the staging and treatment of ovarian and endometrial cancer. The
question of how to sample grossly negative omentectomy specimens has not
been adequately answered. We reviewed our institutional experience by
retrieving a series of gynecologic cancer cases from 1998 to 2013 in
which the omentum was grossly negative, but microscopically positive.
There were 21 patients with ovarian carcinoma, 7 with ovarian borderline
tumors, and 16 with endometrial carcinoma (44 patients in total). Cases
in which the omentum was grossly abnormal or suspicious were excluded. A
mean of 5.2 blocks were submitted per case (range, 4–15), of which a
mean of 2.7 were positive for metastatic disease (range, 1–5). The
distribution of cases by percentage of blocks positive was bimodal: some
cases showed only 1 or 2 foci of disease in the entire sampled omentum,
whereas in other cases nearly every block was positive. Only 3 cases
had been sampled with >5 blocks. We used a series of simulated cases,
bootstrapped on the retrospective series, to determine the additional
sensitivity conferred by submitting >5 blocks. This model indicated
that 5 blocks will, in fact, be insufficient to capture microscopic
metastases in some cases. Examination of 5 blocks has an estimated
sensitivity of 82%, whereas submission of 10 blocks raises the
sensitivity to 95%. These results suggest that submission of 10 blocks
should be considered for grossly negative omentectomy specimens when
other staging is negative.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.