Context.—

Endocervical adenocarcinoma is divided into human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated (HPVA) and HPV-independent (HPVI) in the 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) tumor classification launched in 2020. However, the validity of the morphologic criteria used for biopsy specimens in real-world practice remains undetermined.

Objective.—

To validate the utility of the 5th edition of the WHO classification for biopsy samples, focusing on its diagnostic criteria with the aid of ancillary studies.

Design.—

We retrieved 217 cases of endocervical adenocarcinoma from 6 institutions, in which glass slides of both biopsy and resection specimens were available for review. Concordance between the biopsy and resection specimen diagnoses was evaluated. For discordant diagnoses, an algorithmic approach with ancillary studies proposed by the international group was applied to confirm their utility to improve the accuracy of biopsy diagnosis.

Results.—

The biopsy diagnosis matched the resection specimen diagnosis in 197 cases (concordance rate, 91%; κ = 0.75). The concordance rate was significantly higher for HPVA than HPVI (95% versus 81%, P = .001). There were no significant differences in the proportions of HPVA and HPVI or the accuracy of biopsy diagnosis between the participating institutions. All 19 discordant cases with unstained glass slides available were accurately recategorized as HPVA or HPVI using HPV in situ hybridization; p16 immunohistochemistry was positive in 3 of 9 cases of gastric-type HPVI that were negative by in situ hybridization.

Conclusions.—

The 5th edition of the WHO criteria for biopsy diagnosis of endocervical adenocarcinoma distinguishes HPVA from HPVI well when ancillary studies are adequately applied.

During the past 2 decades, accumulated clinicopathologic studies and molecular-based investigations have led to a significant change in how endocervical adenocarcinoma is classified. Uterine cervical cancer was historically believed to be solely a human papillomavirus (HPV)–related disease based on the discovery that HPV is involved in the carcinogenesis of cervical cancer.1  However, our current understanding is that uterine cervical cancer represents a heterogeneous group of neoplasms. In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) revised the histopathologic classification of uterine cervical cancer. In the revised scheme, both squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma are divided into 2 major categories: HPV-associated (HPVA) and HPV-independent (HPVI) subtypes.2  HPV-independent SCC of the uterine cervix appears to be rare and remains less well understood than HPV-associated carcinoma. By contrast, there has been growing awareness of HPVI glandular lesions, as represented by those with gastric morphology and immunophenotype (gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the uterine cervix [GAS]). GAS was first described in 2007 by Kojima et al3  and has since been shown to be common in Japan, accounting for 20% to 25% of all endocervical adenocarcinomas. More importantly, compared with usual-type HPVA endocervical adenocarcinoma, GAS shows more aggressive clinical behavior and a poor outcome,3–5  indicating that this tumor is a distinct entity. To incorporate awareness of the heterogeneity of endocervical adenocarcinoma in the new morphologic criteria published in 2018, the International Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Criteria and Classification (IECC) proposed that endocervical adenocarcinoma be divided into 2 etiologic subtypes, namely HPVA and HPVI.6  This nomenclature was adopted for endocervical adenocarcinoma in the 5th edition of the WHO classification of uterine cervical cancer published in 2020.2 

The HPV status of SCC is determined by ancillary studies, including HPV in situ hybridization (ISH) and p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC). However, these studies are not essential for adenocarcinoma because of the good correlation between the HPV status and morphology. In the updated classification, HPVI includes GAS, clear cell carcinoma, and mesonephric carcinoma, all of which have distinctive morphology and can be recognized by histologic examination with hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining. The IECC and 5th edition of the WHO diagnostic criteria have been found to be useful when using a resected specimen,7,8  but their value when using a biopsy specimen remains to be determined.

Biopsy diagnosis has a pivotal role in the management of uterine cervical cancer because a resected specimen is not available for histopathologic diagnosis in patients with advanced cancer; radical surgery is not generally indicated for tumors of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II or higher, which account for 70% of all uterine cervical cancers.9,10  HPVA and HPVI differ in terms of patients’ outcomes and responses to concurrent chemoradiotherapy,11–13  necessitating a novel therapeutic strategy for HPVI based on an accurate biopsy diagnosis. However, a limited amount of tissue as well as crush artifact or extensive tissue necrosis may compromise precise interpretation of morphology. In such circumstances, ancillary studies may provide additional information to support the final decision. The international group that developed the IECC diagnostic criteria has proposed an algorithm of ancillary studies to improve the accuracy of histologic diagnosis with a validation study using a tissue microarray constructed with resected specimens.14  However, the value of this approach when making a diagnosis based on a biopsy specimen is unknown.

In this study, we retrospectively examined the concordance between biopsy and resection specimen diagnoses of endocervical adenocarcinoma in real-world practice in Japan to validate application of the IECC and the 5th edition of the WHO diagnostic criteria and the utility of the ISH- and/or IHC-based algorithmic approach proposed by the international group in biopsy specimen cases.

Patient Population

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee (authorization number: RIN-2411) at Kumamoto University (Kumamoto, Japan). We retrieved 217 cases of endocervical adenocarcinoma diagnosed based on the 4th (2014)15  or 5th (2020)2  editions of the WHO classification with availability of glass slides for both biopsy and resection specimens (conization, n = 17; hysterectomy, n = 200) in the pathology database from 2014 to 2021 at 6 academic institutions in Japan. At all participating institutions, the diagnoses were confirmed by board-certified pathologists (Japanese Society of Pathology), who were also members of the Japanese Society of Gynecologic Pathology, specializing in gynecologic pathology and oncology. No standardized guideline or protocol for ancillary studies was available for this project, and each institution applied and performed ISH and/or IHC based on their own policy. Patients who received chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy before biopsy or had a diagnosis of mixed histology were excluded.

Data Acquisition and Analysis

Original pathology reports for both biopsy and resection specimens and medical records were reviewed in all cases. Data regarding patient age, history of preoperative therapy, surgical procedure, biopsy and resection specimen diagnoses, ancillary studies, and pathologic stage classification were recorded. The original pathologic stage data, which followed the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) 8th edition, were converted to align with the AJCC version 9/UICC 2021 guidelines based on FIGO 2018 criteria. We converted the histopathologic diagnoses made prior to 2020 (following the 4th edition of the WHO classification) to the corresponding diagnostic categories defined in the 5th edition for the current analysis2,6,15  (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Conversion scheme for the 4th and 5th editions of the World Health Organization diagnostic categories. Abbreviations: HPV, human papillomavirus; NOS, not otherwise specified; WHO, World Health Organization.

Figure 1.

Conversion scheme for the 4th and 5th editions of the World Health Organization diagnostic categories. Abbreviations: HPV, human papillomavirus; NOS, not otherwise specified; WHO, World Health Organization.

Close modal

IHC and ISH

In cases with discordant biopsy and resection specimen diagnoses, the glass sides were critically reviewed by 2 of the authors (F.K. and Y.M.), and misinterpretations were corrected before further analyses. To determine whether the algorithmic approach proposed by the international group contributed to improving the pathologic diagnostic concordance rate between biopsy specimens and resected specimens, we performed ISH and IHC using the recommended panel of antibodies14  with some modifications.

We first evaluated HPV-ISH (Inform HPV III Family 16 Probe, Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, Arizona) and p16 IHC (E6H4, ready to use; Ventana Medical Systems), and then added estrogen receptor (ER) IHC (monoclonal, SP1, ready to use; Roche, Basel, Switzerland) for HPV-ISH-negative and/or p16 IHC-negative cases. GATA3 IHC (monoclonal, L50-823, ready to use; Biocare Medical, Pacheco, California) was performed in ER-negative cases.

HPV-ISH was performed as follows. First, 4-μm-thick sections from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded blocks were obtained. Samples were assessed by HPV DNA ISH with proprietary reagents on an automated system using a BenchMark ULTRA system (Ventana Medical Systems) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The probe targets HPV 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 56, 58, and 66, which are the high-risk types. The presence of diffuse, punctate, or mixed-signal patterns in epithelial cell nuclei indicated positive reactivity.16 

For IHC, 4-μm-thick sections from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded blocks were incubated with the primary antibodies. p16 and ER were stained using the BenchMark ULTRA system and GATA3 was stained using a BOND-III system (Leica Biosystems, Wetzlar, Germany). For p16, strong diffuse staining was recorded as positive, while heterogeneous, patchy, or no staining was interpreted as negative. The ER status was considered positive if >25% of tumor cell nuclei were positive, and the GATA3 status was considered positive if nuclear staining was noted in >5% of tumor cells.14 

Statistical Analysis

Concordance between the biopsy diagnosis and the resection specimen diagnosis was calculated using the κ coefficient for all cases as well as by institution. The κ coefficients were interpreted as follows: ≤0.00, no agreement; 0.01 to 0.20, no to slight agreement; 0.21 to 0.40, fair agreement; 0.41 to 0.60, moderate agreement; 0.61 to 0.80, substantial agreement; and 0.81 to 1.00, almost perfect agreement. The χ2 contingency test was used to compare the diagnostic concordance between biopsy and resection specimens according to tumor category, the use of IHC as a diagnostic aid for the biopsy specimen, variations in the proportions of HPVA and HPVI, and the concordance rate of biopsy and resection specimen diagnoses among the participating institutions. To determine whether the 5th edition of the WHO criteria (Figure 2, A through D) could identify HPVA and HPVI in biopsy specimens, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of a biopsy diagnosis based on these criteria. All statistical analyses were conducted using GraphPad Prism 9 software, version 9.5.1 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, California). A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Figure 2.

Human papillomavirus–associated usual-type (A and B) and human papillomavirus–independent gastric-type (C and D) (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnifications ×40 [A and C] and ×200 [B and D]).

Figure 2.

Human papillomavirus–associated usual-type (A and B) and human papillomavirus–independent gastric-type (C and D) (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnifications ×40 [A and C] and ×200 [B and D]).

Close modal

Study Cohort

The patients’ mean age was 47.9 ± 0.8 years. There was no history of preoperative therapy in 212 patients. Fourteen patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 1 received concurrent chemoradiotherapy after establishment of a biopsy diagnosis. Conization or loop electrosurgical excision was performed in 40 patients and was followed by total hysterectomy in 23 patients. Total hysterectomy was performed as the primary surgery in 177 patients. The pathologic T stage was pT1a1 in 34 patients, pT1a2 in 16, pT1b1 in 57, pT1b2 in 51, pT1b3 in 12, pT2a1 in 11, pT2a2 in 3, pT2b in 31, and pT3b in 2. Lymph nodes were dissected and examined in 188 patients, and the pathologic N stage was pN0 in 148 patients, pN1 in 36, and pN2 in 4. Distant metastasis (pM1) was found in 4 patients (2 with ovarian metastases, 1 with omental dissemination, and 1 with both ovarian metastasis and omental and peritoneal dissemination).

Concordance Between Biopsy Diagnosis and Resected Specimen Diagnosis

The biopsy diagnosis matched the resection specimen diagnosis in 197 of 217 cases (concordance rate, 91%; κ = 0.75). Concordance was significantly higher for HPVA than for HPVI (95% versus 81%, P < .05). Table 1 shows the agreement rate between the biopsy and resection specimen diagnoses according to histologic subtype. In the routine clinical practice setting in the participating institutions from 2014 to 2020, biopsy had a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 84%, positive predictive value of 95%, and negative predictive value of 84% for diagnosis of HPVA and 81%, 97%, 89%, and 96%, respectively, for HPVI (Table 2).

Table 1.

IECC 2018/WHO 2020 Classification of 217 Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Cases With the Concordance Rate of Biopsy and Resection Specimen Diagnoses

IECC 2018/WHO 2020 Classification of 217 Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Cases With the Concordance Rate of Biopsy and Resection Specimen Diagnoses
IECC 2018/WHO 2020 Classification of 217 Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Cases With the Concordance Rate of Biopsy and Resection Specimen Diagnoses
Table 2.

Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value of the IECC 2018/WHO 2020 Criteria for HPVA and HPVI

Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value of the IECC 2018/WHO 2020 Criteria for HPVA and HPVI
Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value of the IECC 2018/WHO 2020 Criteria for HPVA and HPVI

Variation Among Participating Institutions

There was no significant difference in the proportions of HPVA and HPVI detected at the 6 institutions (range, 70%–100%; P = .20) or in the concordance rates (range, 89%–100%; P = .69). Although not statistically significant, the proportion of HPVA at one institution was close to 100% with a complete concordance rate (100%). All cases at this institution were diagnosed as HPVA with the exception of 1 case of high-grade adenocarcinoma with an unusual morphology (Figure 3). This deviation from the typical distribution of endocervical adenocarcinoma in Japan, which usually consists of 75% to 85% HPVA and 15% to 25% HPVI, presumably reflects variations in therapeutic policies between individual institutions. In Japan, gynecologists prefer to perform primary surgery for locally advanced cervical cancer (ie, FIGO stages IB or IIA). However, at this particular institution, concurrent chemoradiotherapy is preferred to primary radical surgery in such patients. Therefore, a significant number of patients with HPVI, who frequently have locally advanced disease at presentation, were excluded from this study.

Figure 3.

Variation in proportions of human papillomavirus-associated (HPVA) and human papillomavirus-independent (HPVI) cases and biopsy resection specimen concordance by participating site (A–F).

Figure 3.

Variation in proportions of human papillomavirus-associated (HPVA) and human papillomavirus-independent (HPVI) cases and biopsy resection specimen concordance by participating site (A–F).

Close modal

Real-World Contribution of Ancillary Studies

Ancillary studies, including ISH and IHC, were performed in 89 (41%) of the 217 cases to establish the diagnosis in biopsy specimens. Various antibodies or markers were used for IHC (median, 3; range, 1–14), including p16, ER, PgR, HER2, vimentin, CEA, CK7, CK20, CDX2, PAX8, MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC, MUC6, HIK1083 (anti-GlcNAc α1-R), carbonic anhydrase type-IX, claudin-18, CD10, PTEN, MSH6, PMS2, HNF-1β, napsin A, IMP3, AFP, glypican-3, GCDFP-15, GATA3, WT-1, p53, TTF-1, p40, p63, CK 5/6, INSM1, chromogranin A, synaptophysin, S-100 protein, and Ki-67. HPV-ISH was performed in 1 case. Ancillary studies were ordered more frequently in cases of HPVI than in cases of HPVA (76% [32 of 42] versus 33% [55 of 168]; P < .05).

The most common reason for performing IHC was differentiation between HPVA and HPVI, accounting for 60 of 89 (67%) of the IHC examinations performed. Twenty-three (38%) of these 60 cases were considered to be HPVA based on morphology, showing features that were usual-type (n = 19), signet-ring cell-type mucinous carcinoma (n = 3), or invasive stratified mucin-producing carcinoma (n = 1), and they were confirmed to be HPVA by positive staining for p16 IHC. However, 37 of 60 cases (62%) cases were considered morphologically definite or suspicious for HPVI, and ancillary studies were performed to confirm the diagnosis; additional studies for further classification were performed in a subset of these cases.

The second indication for IHC was determination of the primary tumor site, accounting for 20 of 89 (22%) of all IHC examinations performed. The most common scenario was distinguishing between HPVA showing a pattern of usual-type endocervical adenocarcinoma and endometroid endometrial carcinoma secondarily involving the uterine cervix. Other reasons for IHC included differentiation between nonkeratinizing SCC and poorly differentiated or high-grade endocervical adenocarcinoma with a predominant solid component (6 of 89 [7%] cases) and confirmation of a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma for cases that were morphologically equivocal because of a small amount of tissue sampled or crush artifact (3 of 89 [3%] cases).

There was no difference in the concordance rate for biopsy diagnosis and resection specimen diagnosis between the 128 cases diagnosed without ancillary studies and the 89 cases diagnosed with ancillary studies (91% versus 91%; P = .93).

Algorithmic Approach

The algorithmic approach proposed by the international group14  was applied to biopsy specimens in 19 of the 20 cases with a discordant diagnosis (Figure 4), and all 19 cases were successfully recategorized as HPVA or HPVI by HPV-ISH. However, p16 IHC was positive in 3 of 9 HPV-ISH-negative cases with intracytoplasmic mucin, which represents gastric-type HPVI (Figure 5, A through F). Further subclassification of HPVA and HPVI failed in 3 (16%) of the 19 cases, presumably because of spatial heterogeneity in IHC (Figure 6, A through F).

Figure 4.

Diagnosis of 19 discordant cases based on an algorithmic approach. Abbreviations: ER, estrogen receptor; HPVA, human papillomavirus associated; HPV-ISH, human papillomavirus–in situ hybridization; NOS, not otherwise specified. *One case showed focal intestinal differentiation.

Figure 4.

Diagnosis of 19 discordant cases based on an algorithmic approach. Abbreviations: ER, estrogen receptor; HPVA, human papillomavirus associated; HPV-ISH, human papillomavirus–in situ hybridization; NOS, not otherwise specified. *One case showed focal intestinal differentiation.

Close modal
Figure 5.

Discordant case. The morphologic diagnosis on biopsy was HPVA usual-type (A). HPV-ISH (B), and ER negative (C), resulting in an algorithmic diagnosis of HPVI gastric-type. However, p16 was positive (D). The resection diagnosis was HPVI gastric-type (E and F). Abbreviations: ER, estrogen receptor; HPV, human papillomavirus; HPVA, human papillomavirus associated; HPVI, human papillomavirus independent; ISH, in situ hybridization (hematoxylin-eosin [A, E, and F], HPV-ISH [B], ER [C], and p16 [D], original magnifications ×200 [A, B, C, D, and F] and ×40 [E]).

Figure 5.

Discordant case. The morphologic diagnosis on biopsy was HPVA usual-type (A). HPV-ISH (B), and ER negative (C), resulting in an algorithmic diagnosis of HPVI gastric-type. However, p16 was positive (D). The resection diagnosis was HPVI gastric-type (E and F). Abbreviations: ER, estrogen receptor; HPV, human papillomavirus; HPVA, human papillomavirus associated; HPVI, human papillomavirus independent; ISH, in situ hybridization (hematoxylin-eosin [A, E, and F], HPV-ISH [B], ER [C], and p16 [D], original magnifications ×200 [A, B, C, D, and F] and ×40 [E]).

Close modal
Figure 6.

HPVI erroneously categorized by the algorithm approach. Adenocarcinoma (A and B) with negative p16 (C) and positive ER (D) resulted in a diagnosis of HPVI endometrioid-type. The resection specimen diagnosis was clear cell carcinoma (E and F [HNF-1β]). Abbreviations: ER, estrogen receptor; HPVI, human papillomavirus independent (hematoxylin-eosin [A, B, and E], p16 [C], ER [D], and HNF-1β [F], original magnifications ×40 [A], ×100 [C and D], and ×200 [B, E, and F]).

Figure 6.

HPVI erroneously categorized by the algorithm approach. Adenocarcinoma (A and B) with negative p16 (C) and positive ER (D) resulted in a diagnosis of HPVI endometrioid-type. The resection specimen diagnosis was clear cell carcinoma (E and F [HNF-1β]). Abbreviations: ER, estrogen receptor; HPVI, human papillomavirus independent (hematoxylin-eosin [A, B, and E], p16 [C], ER [D], and HNF-1β [F], original magnifications ×40 [A], ×100 [C and D], and ×200 [B, E, and F]).

Close modal

The distinction of 2 major categories of endocervical adenocarcinoma, namely HPVA and HPVI, is currently considered a critical issue in terms of etiology, early detection, clinical management, prediction of response to therapy and patient outcome, enrollment in clinical trials, and basic research. Therefore, a diagnosis of endocervical adenocarcinoma alone appears to be suboptimal, even as an interpretation of a biopsy specimen. Histologic distinction of the 2 categories proposed in the IECC and the updated WHO classification appears to be valid for resection specimens7,8  Although p16 IHC or HPV detection is not essential for differentiation between HPVA and HPVI in the 5th edition of the WHO criteria, algorithmic application of ancillary studies may improve diagnostic concordance.2  One example of success using this approach is the diagnostic algorithm proposed by the international group that developed the IECC diagnostic criteria.14  Briefly, HPV-ISH separates HPVA from endometrial endometrioid carcinoma and HPVI. The ER status can then be used to separate endometrial endometrioid carcinoma from HPVI. For tumors with limited cytoplasmic mucin, GATA3 expression can then be used to differentiate HPVI, mesonephric-type from HPVI, clear cell type. For tumors with cytoplasmic mucin, an HPV-ISH–negative and ER-negative tumor is considered HPVI, gastric-type.

In this multi-institutional study, we found high concordance between biopsy and resection specimen diagnoses of endocervical adenocarcinoma according to the IECC and 5th edition of the WHO criteria in real-world practice in Japan. This finding indicates that application of the recently revised diagnostic criteria to biopsy specimens is feasible.

This study had some unique aspects. First, we skipped a central pathology review and instead adopted the matched resection specimen diagnosis as the gold standard. Second, the pathologists involved in the study were familiar with the histology of HPVI. The patients included in this study were enrolled from 2014 to 2021, which means that a proportion of them were diagnosed before the IECC and 5th edition of the WHO morphologic criteria were advocated. However, the pathologic diagnosis was supervised by gynecologic pathologists who had been familiar with the histology of HPVI since its first description in 2007; one of the authors (Y.M.) was a contributor to this description. Furthermore, another author (T.K.) contributed to establishment of the IECC and shared their diagnostic experience and knowledge with members of our study group. These unique features allowed us to capture a snapshot of the real-world practice of uterine cervical biopsy interpretation based on the IECC and 5th edition of the WHO criteria in Japan.

Our data show that the accuracy of diagnosis of endocervical adenocarcinoma based on a biopsy specimen is comparable to that based on a resection specimen when IHC ancillary studies are included, with a concordance rate of 91%. Our review of pathology reports showed that 59% of biopsy specimens were diagnosed by H&E staining alone and that IHC was performed in the remaining cases. There was no significant difference in the concordance rate between the group diagnosed based on morphology alone and the group diagnosed with the aid of ancillary studies. Moreover, although the accuracy of biopsy diagnosis was lower for HPVI than for HPVA (81% versus 95%), the proportion of cases diagnosed with the aid of ancillary studies was higher for HPVI (76% versus 33%).

There are 2 potential explanations for our unexpected finding that IHC did not improve diagnostic accuracy. The first is the lack of hierarchical application of IHC, such as the algorithmic approach proposed by the international group. The second is the general tendency to use ancillary studies for histologically challenging cases.

To examine the first possibility, we evaluated the impact of the algorithmic approach in selected cases of discordant diagnosis,14  considering that these cases were originally diagnosed under a different diagnostic policy and approach in various institutions. We found that HPV-ISH successfully categorized all 19 discordant cases as either HPVA or HPVI. Whether p16 IHC can serve as a surrogate for HPV-ISH is controversial. In the present study, p16 was positive in one-third of HPV-ISH-negative cases with abundant intracytoplasmic mucin. This false-positive staining rate is higher than the previously reported diffuse p16 positivity rate in HPVI, which ranges from 8% to 20%.5,7,17  In the English-language literature, the sensitivity of p16 IHC for detection of HPVA ranges from 87% to 100%, with values of 91.3% and 96.0%, respectively, reported for HPV DNA-ISH and HPV RNA-ISH; this indicates the superiority of HPV-ISH.6,7  Therefore, the use of HPV-ISH is recommended for differentiation of HPVA from HPVI, and the p16 IHC result should be interpreted with caution, particularly when the tumor shows mucinous histology.

The findings of this study also suggest a limitation of the algorithmic approach in small biopsy specimens. The limited sampling and the intratumoral heterogeneity of the morphology and IHC staining can be sources of confusion and misclassification of HPVI, and further subdivision might be impossible. Indeed, one case of HPVI of the clear cell type was confirmed to have been miscategorized as endometrioid carcinoma because of positive staining for ER. Biopsy diagnosis of endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix, which cannot be distinguished from endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium by H&E staining, IHC, or HPV-ISH, is also challenging. Endometrioid carcinoma of the uterine cervix might be erroneously categorized as endometrioid carcinoma of the endometrium in biopsy specimens. In principle, subclassification requires examination of the resected specimen. Otherwise, use of IHC should include a broad panel of histology-specific markers such as HIK1083, carbonic anhydrase type IX, and claudin 18 for gastric-type carcinoma; HNF-1β and napsin A for clear cell carcinoma; TTF1 and calretinin for mesonephric carcinoma; and PTEN and ARID1A for endometrioid carcinoma. Secondary involvement of endometrial or extrauterine origin should also be a diagnostic concern in an HPV-negative case, and addition of WT1 may confirm a diagnosis of high-grade serous carcinoma of tubo-ovarian origin.

Regarding the second potential explanation for our unexpected finding that IHC did not improve diagnostic accuracy, ancillary studies are generally applied in challenging cases with rare histology, unusual or atypical morphology, or limited amounts of tissue with or without crush artifact. An algorithmic approach could help to avoid a diagnosis of “endocervical adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified” instead of assigning HPVA or HPVI, which would now be considered unsatisfactory in terms of optimal patient management.

Biopsy diagnosis of HPVI may be difficult because of a variety of morphologic variations.18  Therefore, strict application of the criteria for HPVA is considered a seminal point, and a subset of cases showing unusual morphology that does not fit with HPVA should provide candidates for ancillary studies. The algorithmic approach employing HPV-ISH and ER and GATA3 IHC proposed by the international group appears to be a reasonably effective tool for improvement of diagnostic accuracy14  but might not be cost effective or time efficient in diagnostic pathology laboratories; therefore, it should be combined with morphology. Information on imaging studies is also mandatory for distinguishing between endocervical adenocarcinoma and extension of endometrial endometrioid carcinoma.

In summary, we have shown good concordance between biopsy diagnosis and resected specimen diagnosis of endocervical adenocarcinoma in diagnostic pathology practice in the era of the IECC and 5th edition of the WHO criteria. This is the first study to validate use of these criteria in biopsy specimens. Our findings have the potential to impact multiple aspects of the care of patients with endocervical adenocarcinoma, given that a biopsy specimen is the only available tissue material for many patients with uterine cervical adenocarcinoma.

The study was aided by the Japanese Society of Gynecologic Pathology. We thank Edanz (https://jp.edanz.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

1.
zur Hausen
H,
Gissmann
L,
Steiner
W,
Dippold
W,
Dreger
I.
Human papilloma viruses and cancer
.
Bibl Haematol
.
1975
;(
43)
:
569
571
.
2.
Herrington
CSKK-R,
Kong
CS,
Longacre
TA,
et al.
Tumours of the uterine cervix. In:
WHO Classification of Tumors Editorial Board
, eds.
World Health Organization Classification of Tumours: Female Genital Tumours
. 5th ed.
Lyon, France
:
International Agency for Research on Cancer
;
2020
:
335
389
.
3.
Kojima
A,
Mikami
Y,
Sudo
T,
et al.
Gastric morphology and immunophenotype predict poor outcome in mucinous adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix
.
Am J Surg Pathol
.
2007
;
31
(
5
):
664
672
.
4.
Rodriguez-Carunchio
L,
Soveral
I,
Steenbergen
RD,
et al.
HPV-negative carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a distinct type of cervical cancer with poor prognosis
.
BJOG
.
2015
;
122
(
1
):
119
127
.
5.
Park
KJ,
Kiyokawa
T,
Soslow
RA,
et al.
Unusual endocervical adenocarcinomas: an immunohistochemical analysis with molecular detection of human papillomavirus
.
Am J Surg Pathol
.
2011
;
35
(
5
):
633
646
.
6.
Stolnicu
S,
Barsan
I,
Hoang
L,
et al.
International Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Criteria and Classification (IECC): a new pathogenetic classification for invasive adenocarcinomas of the endocervix
.
Am J Surg Pathol
.
2018
;
42
(
2
):
214
226
.
7.
Bulutay
P,
Haberal
N,
Ozen
O,
et al.
Reproducibility of morphologic parameters of the international endocervical adenocarcinoma criteria and classification system and correlation with clinicopathologic parameters: a multi-institutional study
.
Int J Gynecol Pathol
.
2022
;
41
(
5
):
447
458
.
8.
Lee
Y,
Bae
H,
Kim
HS.
Endocervical adenocarcinoma: comprehensive histological review and re-classification of 123 consecutive cases according to the updated World Health Organization classification of female genital tumors
.
Anticancer Res
.
2022
;
42
(
9
):
4627
4639
.
9.
Grigsby
PW,
Massad
LS,
Mutch
DG,
et al.
FIGO 2018 staging criteria for cervical cancer: impact on stage migration and survival
.
Gynecol Oncol
.
2020
;
157
(
3
):
639
643
.
10.
Abu-Rustum
NR,
Yashar
CM,
Arend
R,
Barber
E,
Bradley
K.
NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: cervical cancer
. https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1426. Accessed November 8, 2024.
11.
Kojima
A,
Shimada
M,
Mikami
Y,
et al.
Chemoresistance of gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a study of the Sankai Gynecology Study Group
.
Int J Gynecol Cancer
.
2018
;
28
(
1
):
99
106
.
12.
Nishio
S,
Matsuo
K,
Nasu
H,
et al.
Analysis of postoperative adjuvant therapy in 102 patients with gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a multi-institutional study
.
Eur J Surg Oncol
.
2022
;
48
(
9
):
2039
2044
.
13.
Nishio
S,
Mikami
Y,
Tokunaga
H,
et al.
Analysis of gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the uterine cervix—an aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis: a multi-institutional study
.
Gynecol Oncol
.
2019
;
153
(
1
):
13
19
.
14.
Stolnicu
S,
Barsan
I,
Hoang
L,
et al.
Diagnostic algorithmic proposal based on comprehensive immunohistochemical evaluation of 297 invasive endocervical adenocarcinomas
.
Am J Surg Pathol
.
2018
;
42
(
8
):
989
1000
.
15.
Wilbur
DC,
Colgan
TJ,
Ferenczy
AS,
et al.
Tumours of the uterine cervix: glandular tumours and precursors. In:
Kurman
RJ,
Carcangiu
ML,
Herrington
CS,
Young
RH
, eds.
World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs
. 4th ed.
Lyon, France
:
International Agency for Research on Cancer
;
2014
:
183
189
.
16.
Guo
M,
Gong
Y,
Deavers
M,
et al.
Evaluation of a commercialized in situ hybridization assay for detecting human papillomavirus DNA in tissue specimens from patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical carcinoma
.
J Clin Microbiol
.
2008
;
46
(
1
):
274
280
.
17.
Carleton
C,
Hoang
L,
Sah
S,
et al.
A detailed immunohistochemical analysis of a large series of cervical and vaginal gastric-type adenocarcinomas
.
Am J Surg Pathol
.
2016
;
40
(
5
):
636
644
.
18.
Pirog
EC,
Park
KJ,
Kiyokawa
T,
et al.
Gastric-type adenocarcinoma of the cervix: tumor with wide range of histologic appearances
.
Adv Anat Pathol
.
2019
;
26
(
1
):
1
12
.

Author notes

This work was supported by KAKENHI grants from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan to F.K. and Y.M. (23K08825).

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

The preliminary findings of this project were presented as a poster at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology 112th annual meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana; March 13, 2023.