Search

Context.--Immunohistochemistry has assumed an increasing role in the identification and characterization of gynecologic disorders including lesions with deceptively bland morphology, uncommon and underdiagnosed neoplasms, and neoplasms with specific genetic alterations associated with overexpression or loss of expression of specific proteins. The diagnostic accuracy has been significantly improved owing to the discovery and increasing experience with the tumor-associated biomarkers, and the increasing demand for precise tumor classification to assess suitability for the expanding therapeutic modalities including clinical trials. Objective.--To differentiate lesions of the gynecologic tract through the use of effective immunohistochemical panels. Data Sources.--Literature review and authors’ personal practice experience. Conclusions.--The application of diagnostic and prognostic immunohistochemical panels has enabled pathologists to better guide therapeutic decisions and to better predict the clinical outcome. It is now well established that the use of ancillary testing, including immunohistochemistry, has a significant power in the identification, differentiation, and classification of reactive, premalignant, and malignant gynecologic disorders. This article discusses the utilities and pitfalls of the commonly used immunohistochemical markers in the context of overlapping morphologic features encountered in the uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Characterizing ovarian pathology is fundamental to optimizing management in both pre- and post-menopausal women. Inappropriate referral to oncology services can lead to unnecessary surgery or overly radical interventions compromising fertility in young women, whilst the consequences of failing to recognize cancer significantly impact on prognosis. By reflecting on recent developments of new diagnostic tests for preoperative identification of malignant disease in women with adnexal masses, we aimed to update a previous systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS An extended search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE (OvidSp) from March 2008 to October 2013. Eligible studies provided information on diagnostic test performance of models, designed to predict ovarian cancer in a preoperative setting, that contained at least two variables. Study selection and extraction of study characteristics, types of bias, and test performance was performed independently by two reviewers. Quality was assessed using a modified version of the QUADAS assessment tool. A bivariate hierarchical random effects model was used to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals or plot summary ROC curves for all models considered. RESULTS Our extended search identified a total of 1542 new primary articles. In total, 195 studies were eligible for qualitative data synthesis, and 96 validation studies reporting on 19 different prediction models met the predefined criteria for quantitative data synthesis. These models were tested on 26 438 adnexal masses, including 7199 (27%) malignant and 19 239 (73%) benign masses. The Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) was the most frequently validated model. The logistic regression model LR2 with a risk cut-off of 10% and Simple Rules (SR), both developed by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study, performed better than all other included models with a pooled sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of 0.92 [95% CI 0.88–0.95] and 0.83 [95% CI 0.77–0.88] for LR2 and 0.93 [95% CI 0.89–0.95] and 0.81 [95% CI 0.76–0.85] for SR. A meta-analysis of centre-specific results stratified for menopausal status of two multicentre cohorts comparing LR2, SR and RMI-1 (using a cut-off of 200) showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity in premenopausal women for LR2 of 0.85 [95% CI 0.75–0.91] and 0.91 [95% CI 0.83–0.96] compared with 0.93 [95% CI 0.84–0.97] and 0.83 [95% CI 0.73–0.90] for SR and 0.44 [95% CI 0.28–0.62] and 0.95 [95% CI 0.90–0.97] for RMI-1. In post-menopausal women, sensitivity and specificity of LR2, SR and RMI-1 were 0.94 [95% CI 0.89–0.97] and 0.70 [95% CI 0.62–0.77], 0.93 [95% CI 0.88–0.96] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.69–0.82], and 0.79 [95% CI 0.72–0.85] and 0.90 [95% CI 0.84–0.94], respectively. CONCLUSIONS An evidence-based approach to the preoperative characterization of any adnexal mass should incorporate the use of IOTA Simple Rules or the LR2 model, particularly for women of reproductive age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Depression is common in cancer patients but frequently undetected. Consensus regarding validity and optimal thresholds of screening measures is lacking. We investigated the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) and Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) relative to a referent diagnostic standard in women with breast or gynecologic cancer. Method: Participants were 100 patients who completed the CES-D and HADS-D within a larger study. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview was the criterion standard. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios for various thresholds were calculated using receiver operating characteristics. Participants were assigned to two diagnostic groups: ‘major depressive disorder’ or ‘any depressive disorder’. Results: Separate analyses were conducted whereby participants found to be receiving depression/anxiety treatment at the time of validation (n=28) were excluded. Both measures had good internal consistency and criterion validity. There were no statistical differences in global accuracy between the measures for detecting either group. For optimal sensitivity and specificity in both groups, generally recommended thresholds were lowered for the HADS-D. For the CES-D, the threshold was lowered for ‘any depressive disorder’ and raised for ‘major depressive disorder’. Negative predictive values associated with our recommended cutoffs were excellent, but positive predictive values were poor. Conclusions: The HADS-D and CES-D have acceptable properties and are equivalent for detecting depression in this population. Depending on the purpose of screening, the CES-D may be more suitable for identifying major depression. Threshold choice may have serious implications for screening program effectiveness, and the use of generally recommended thresholds should be cautious. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The Inside Knowledge: Get the Facts About Gynecologic Cancer campaign raises awareness of the five main types of gynecologic cancer: cervical, ovarian, uterine, vaginal, and vulvar. It encourages women to pay attention to their bodies and know what is normal for them so they can recognize the warning signs of gynecologic cancers and seek medical care. This report provides an overview of the development of this national campaign. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response from the author of the article "Staging classification for cancer of the ovary and fallopian tube should include in situ carcinoma" in the previous issue is presented.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Staging classification for cancer of the ovary and fallopian tube should include in situ carcinoma" in the previous issue.