[en] [en] OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the added value of a centralized pathology review of the diagnoses of gestational trophoblastic diseases by expert pathologists and its potential impact on clinical management in a prospective multicenter study based on the Belgian Gestational Trophoblastic Diseases Registry.
METHODS: From July 2012 to December 2020, the two referral centers of the registry were solicited to advise on 1119 cases. Referral pathologists systematically reviewed all of the initial histological diagnoses. Cases initially assessed by expert pathologists were excluded. A total of 867 files were eligible for the study. Concordance between diagnoses of gestational trophoblastic diseases made by general 'non-expert' and expert pathologists was analyzed together with the potential impact of the alterations on clinical management. Expert pathologists were working in an academic setting with high exposure to placental pathology and national recognition.
RESULTS: The rate of discordance between expert and non-expert pathologists for the initial diagnoses was 35%. Almost 95% of complete moles were confirmed by the expert pathologists, but only 61% for partial moles. Compared with previous studies, ancillary techniques (p57 immunohistochemistry, karyotype) were used twice as often by both groups of pathologists in this survey. The diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia was altered in 42% of cases. When the initial diagnosis was altered, the clinical relevance of this correction was estimated as down staging, up staging, or not relevant in 65%, 33% and 2% of cases respectively.
CONCLUSION: Systematic centralized pathological review of gestational trophoblastic diseases modified the diagnosis in a third of cases. The results also show that a change in diagnosis would impact clinical management in 98% of patients.
Disciplines :
Laboratory medicine & medical technology
Author, co-author :
Schoenen, Sophie ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service de gynécologie-obstétrique
Delbecque, Katty ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service d'anatomie et cytologie pathologiques
Van Rompuy, Anne-Sophie; Pathology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven UZ Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Marbaix, Etienne; Pathology, University Hospital Saint-Luc, Bruxelles, Belgium
Ngan HYS, Seckl MJ, Berkowitz RS, et al. Diagnosis and management of gestational trophoblastic disease: 2021 update. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2021; 155 Suppl 1: 86-93. doi:10.1002/ijgo.13877 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34669197
Murdoch S, Djuric U, Mazhar B, et al. Mutations in NALP7 cause recurrent hydatidiform moles and reproductive wastage in humans. Nat Genet 2006; 38: 300-2. doi:10.1038/ng1740 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16462743
Nguyen NMP, Khawajkie Y, Mechtouf N, et al. The genetics of recurrent hydatidiform moles: new insights and lessons from a comprehensive analysis of 113 patients. Mod Pathol 2018; 31: 1116-30. doi:10.1038/s41379-018-0031-9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29463882
Hui P, Baergen R, Cheung A. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasms.. In: Kurman RJ, CM L, HG S,. eds. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. Lyon, 2014: 158-67.
Lurain JR. Gestational trophoblastic disease I: epidemiology, pathology, clinical presentation and diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease, and management of hydatidiform mole. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 531-9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.073 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20728069
Shih I-M, IeM S. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia - pathogenesis and potential therapeutic targets. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 642-50. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70204-8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17613426
Paradinas FJ. The differential diagnosis of choriocarcinoma and placental site tumour. Curr Diagn Pathol 1998; 5: 93-101. doi:10.1016/S0968-6053(98)80013-6
Sebire NJ, Rees H, Paradinas F, et al. The diagnostic implications of routine ultrasound examination in histologically confirmed early molar pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 662-5. doi:10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00589.x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11844211
Wells M. The pathology of gestational trophoblastic disease: recent advances. Pathology 2007; 39: 88-96. doi:10.1080/00313020601137367 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17365825
Ronnett BM. Hydatidiform moles: ancillary techniques to refine diagnosis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2018; 142: 1485-502. doi:10.5858/arpa.2018-0226-RA http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30500280
Brewer JI, Eckman TR, Dolkart RE, et al. Gestational trophoblastic disease. A comparative study of the results of therapy in patients with invasive mole and with choriocarcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1971; 109: 335-40. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5539127
Paradinas FJ. The diagnosis and prognosis of molar pregnancy: the experience of the national referral centre in London. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1998; 60: S57-64. doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(98)80006-4
Golfier F, Clerc J, Hajri T, et al. Contribution of referent pathologists to the quality of trophoblastic diseases diagnosis. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 2651-7. doi:10.1093/humrep/der265 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21840909
Belgian cancer registry, 2010. Available: https://kankerregister.org/Tumeurs_rares
Han SN, Van Belle S, Peeters M. Evaluatie van EEN versnelde registratie door Het College voor Oncologie van gestationele trofoblastziekten in België. Tijdschr. voor Geneeskunde 2014; 70.
Delcominette S, Timmermans M, Delbecque K. Belgian register and reference centers for gestational trophoblastic diseases.. Rev Med Liege. 2021; 70 (11): 550-6.
Vandewal A, Delbecque K, Van Rompuy AS, et al. Curative effect of second curettage for treatment of gestational trophoblastic disease-Results of the Belgian registry for gestational trophoblastic disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021; 257: 95-9. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.12.001 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33383413
Cheung AN, Hui P S. Gestational Trophoblastic Disease.. In: Female genital tumours. 5th Edition.
Molina TJ, Bluthgen MV, Chalabreysse L, et al. Impact of expert pathologic review of thymic epithelial tumours on diagnosis and management in a real-life setting: a RYTHMIC study. Eur J Cancer 2021; 143: 158-67. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.11.011 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33316754
Perrier L, Rascle P, Morelle M, et al. The cost-saving effect of centralized histological reviews with soft tissue and visceral sarcomas, GIST, and desmoid tumors: the experiences of the pathologists of the French sarcoma group. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0193330. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193330 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29621244
Hescot S, Sheikh-Alard H, Kordahi M, et al. Impact of expert review of histological diagnosis of papillary and follicular thyroid cancer. Endocrine 2021; 72: 791-7. doi:10.1007/s12020-020-02531-x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33128670
Ronen S, Al-Rohil RN, Keiser E, et al. Discordance in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions and its impact on clinical management. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2021; 145: 1505-15. doi:10.5858/arpa.2020-0620-OA http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33577643
Rosskamp M, De Schutter H, Henau K, et al. Assessing the completeness and correctness of the registration of malignant mesothelioma in Belgium. Lung Cancer 2018; 122: 38-43. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.05.018 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30032843
Lok C, van Trommel N, Massuger L, et al. Practical clinical guidelines of the EOTTD for treatment and referral of gestational trophoblastic disease. Eur J Cancer 2020; 130: 228-40. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.011
Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité, 2020. Available: https://www.inami.fgov.be/fr/statistiques/soinsdesante/2020/Pages/nombre-dispensateurs-soins-individuels.aspx
Vang R, Gupta M, Wu L-S-F, et al. Diagnostic reproducibility of hydatidiform moles: ancillary techniques (p57 immunohistochemistry and molecular genotyping) improve morphologic diagnosis. Am J Surg Pathol 2012; 36: 443-53. doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e31823b13fe http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22245958
Sebire NJ, Lindsay I, Fisher RA, et al. Overdiagnosis of complete and partial hydatidiform mole in tubal ectopic pregnancies. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2005; 24: 260-4. doi:10.1097/01.pgp.0000164597.19346.b5 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15968202
StatBel, 2020. Available: https://statbel.fgov.be
Genest DR. Partial hydatidiform mole: clinicopathological features, differential diagnosis, ploidy and molecular studies, and gold standards for diagnosis. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2001; 20: 315-22. doi:10.1097/00004347-200110000-00001 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11603213