Ovarian endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EAC) with a yolk sac tumor (YST) component is extremely rare. Only twelve cases have been reported in the English literature. We report here two additional cases of this rare tumor. The YST component showed classic microscopic features, and immunohistochemically stained positive for alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), but negative for cytokeratin 7 (CK7), epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR). The EAC appeared to blend into the YST in several areas and immunohistochemically stained positive for CK7, EMA, ER, and PR, but negative for AFP.
BACKGROUND Since many patients with intestinal endometriosis present with gastrointestinal symptoms without a history of endometriosis, endoscopic examination of the intestinal tract is initially performed, often leading to a misdiagnosis. METHODS We reviewed the clinicopathologic findings of 18 samples from 15 patients with intestinal endometriosis who underwent endoscopic biopsy and/or surgical resection to identify diagnostically helpful findings. RESULTS All 7 biopsy specimens displayed relatively well-defined submucosal lesions, with non-mucinous glands lined by ciliated epithelium and surrounding cellular stroma containing spiral arteriole-like blood vessels. The stroma was immunopositive for CD10 in all cases. All but one specimen exhibited immunopositivity for ER and PR in both glandular and stromal components. In contrast to the overlying normal colonic mucosa, glandular epithelium with endometriosis was immunopositive for cytokeratin (CK) 7, but immunonegative for CK20 in all cases. Three cases were associated with adenocarcinoma in the same or different segments; specifically, two primary rectal adenocarcinomas and one endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising from endometriosis. CONCLUSIONS The characteristic features of endometrial glands and stroma, including non-mucinous glands without goblet cells, ciliated columnar epithelium, and cellular stroma with spiral arterioles, facilitate the accurate diagnosis of intestinal endometriosis, which can be confirmed by immunohistochemical staining.
We describe here a case of minimal deviation endometrioid adenocarcinoma (MDEA) of the uterine cervix that was initially suspected according to the abnormal cytologic findings in a 39-year-old woman. The Papanicolaou (pap) smear showed many neoplastic glandular cells in monolayered sheets, rosettes, and clusters with palisading and feathering borders. The tumor cells had oval, hyperchromatic nuclei, with chromatin clumping and small nucleoli.
Histologic examination disclosed endometrial-type glands with a bland, isolated, mainly rounded appearance and these glands were widely scattered deep into the cervical stroma with only scant stromal reaction. An association of MDEA with tubo-endometrioid metaplasia or cervical endometriosis has been suggested by identifying the tubo-endometrioid glands in the vicinity of the MDEA.
Kwang Sun Suh, Insun Kim, Moon Hyang Park, Geung Hwan Ahn, Jin Hee Sohn, In Ae Park, Hye Kyoung Yoon, Kyu Rae Kim, Hee Jung An, Dong Won Kim, Mi Jin Kim, Hee Jae Joo, Eun Kyung Kim, Young Hee Choi, Chong Woo Yoo, Kyung Un Choi, Sang Yeop Yi, Hye Sun Kim, Sung Ran Hong, Hee Jeong Lee, Sun Lee
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to examine the reproducibility of both the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) or adenocarcinoma, and the histologic grading (HG) of endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EC). METHODS Ninety-three cases of EH or adenocarcinomas were reviewed independently by 21 pathologists of the Gynecologic Pathology Study Group. A consensus diagnosis was defined as agreement among more than two thirds of the 21 pathologists. RESULTS There was no agreement on the diagnosis in 13 cases (14.0%). According to the consensus review, six of the 11 EH cases (54.5%) were diagnosed as EH, 48 of the 57 EC cases (84.2%) were EC, and 5 of the 6 serous carcinomas (SC) (83.3%) were SC. There was no consensus for the 6 atypical EH (AEH) cases. On the HG of EC, there was no agreement in 2 cases (3.5%). According to the consensus review, 30 of the 33 G1 cases (90.9%) were G1, 11 of the 18 G2 cases (61.1%) were G2, and 4 of the 4 G3 cases (100.0%) were G3. CONCLUSIONS The consensus study showed high agreement for both EC and SC, but there was no consensus for AEH. The reproducibility for the HG of G2 was poor. We suggest that simplification of the classification of EH and a two-tiered grading system for EC will be necessary.