Obesity, an independent predictor of pre and postoperative tumor grading disagreement in endometrial cancer. (July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Capozzi, Vito Andrea; Monfardini, Luciano; Sozzi, Giulio; Butera, Diana; Armano, Giulia; Riccò, Matteo; Giovanna, Giordano; Berretta, Roberto
• Is Part Of: European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. Volume 262(2021)
• Page Start: 160
• Page End: 165
• Publication Date: 2021-07
• Subjects: Endometrial cancer -- Grading concordance -- Obesity -- Tumor grading; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Reproductive health -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Reproduction -- Periodicals; Obstétrique -- Périodiques; Gynécologie -- Périodiques; Reproduction -- Périodiques; Verloskunde; Gynaecologie; Voortplanting (biologie); Gynecology; Obstetrics; Reproduction; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.05.028
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0301-2115

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Obesity is a known independent risk factor for endometrial cancer (EC), and obese patients have a 4.7-fold increased risk compared to the general population to develop the neoplasm. To date, a general pre and postoperative tumor grading agreement from 53 % to 82 % is reported for endometrial analysis, and a consensus on which factors might influence the tumor grading discordance is still absent. Furthermore, although obesity alters the endometrial microenvironment, no studies investigated the role of obesity in the grading agreement of EC patients. This study aims to analyze the role of obesity in the pre and postoperative tumor grading agreement. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on EC cancer women subjected to surgical treatment. Upgrading discordance was defined as higher tumor grading on final pathological analysis compared to tumor grading on the preoperative examination. Downgrading discordance was defined as a lower tumor grading at the postoperative surgical specimen analysis compared to the preoperative biopsy. Results: Of the 293 selected patients, 245 were included in the analysis. One hundred and forty nine (60.8 %) patients were tumor grade G1, 52 (21.2 %) G2, and 44 (18.0 %) G3. Grading agreement was 83.9 % for G1 patients, 51.9 % for G2 patients, and 83.3 % for G3 patients. The multivariate analysis showed obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m 2 ) as significant factor influencing pre and postoperative grading agreement (p = 0.014, Odds Ratio 2.036, 95 % Confidence Interval 1.141–3.635). Conclusions: Our study for the first time showed obesity as the only factor in the multivariate analysis lowering the pre and postoperative tumor grading concordance. Grade 2 tumor was the factor that most frequently disagreed with the final surgical specimen analysis both in the general and in obese patients.