Patterns of SATB2 and p16 reactivity aid in the distinction of atypical polypoid adenomyoma from myoinvasive endometrioid carcinoma and benign adenomyomatous polyp on endometrial sampling.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

7-2021

Publication Title

Histopathology

Abstract

AIMS: Atypical polypoid adenomyoma (APAM) is an uncommon uterine lesion composed of complex endometrioid glands with frequent squamous morular metaplasia and fibromuscular stroma. On endometrial curettage, biopsy or polypectomy specimens, the admixture of endometrioid glands and smooth muscle raises the differential diagnosis of myoinvasive endometrioid carcinoma. Reproductive-age APAM patients may opt for fertility preservation, whereas myoinvasive carcinoma is treated surgically. One previous study reported an incidental finding that the stroma of APAM, in contrast to that of other polypoid lesions, was SATB2-positive. APAM has also been reported to show increased stromal p16 staining. We aimed to assess whether SATB2 and p16 are useful stains for the distinction of APAM from myoinvasive carcinoma and benign adenomyomatous polyps.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Cases of 'atypical polypoid adenomyoma' (n = 32), 'adenomyomatous polyp' (n = 39) and 'myoinvasive endometrioid carcinoma' (n = 30) were identified. Morphological features were assessed, along with the intensity and extent of SATB2 and p16 staining in the stromal component of each lesion. SATB2 expression was seen in the stromal components of 30 of 32 (94%) APAMs, versus none of 39 (0%) benign adenomyomatous polyps and five of 30 (17%) myoinvasive endometrioid carcinomas. Stromal p16 expression was seen in 31 of 31 (100%) APAMs, versus 20 of 39 (51%) benign adenomyomatous polyps and 12 of 30 (40%) myoinvasive endometrioid carcinomas.

CONCLUSIONS: Patchy to diffuse SATB2 and block-type p16 staining of fibromuscular stroma separating atypical endometrioid glands is more consistent with APAM than with myoinvasive endometrioid carcinoma. These stains are potentially useful adjuncts to careful morphological evaluation of endometrial biopsies/curettings.

Volume

79

Issue

1

First Page

96

Last Page

105

DOI

10.1111/his.14338

ISSN

1365-2559

PubMed ID

33459390

Share

COinS