Grading of Endocervical Adenocarcinomas: Review of the Literature and Recommendations From the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists

There is a lack of consensus regarding the prognostic value of grading endocervical adenocarcinomas and currently, no universally applied, validated system for grading exists. Several grading schemes have been proposed, most incorporating an evaluation of tumor architecture and nuclear morphology and these are often based on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) system for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, although some schemes modify the proportion of solid tumor required to separate grades 1 and 2 from 5% to 10%. In the absence of a validated system, we endorse this approach for most human papillomavirus–associated endocervical adenocarcinomas and, based on the available evidence, recommend that tumors with ≤10% solid growth be designated grade 1, 11% to 50% solid growth grade 2 and >50% solid growth grade 3. Tumors should be upgraded in the presence of marked nuclear atypia involving the majority (>50%) of the tumor. Grading is not recommended for human papillomavirus-independent adenocarcinomas, since no validated system has been suggested and most of these neoplasms exhibit intrinsically aggressive behavior regardless of their morphologic appearance. Importantly, grading should not be performed for gastric-type adenocarcinomas, particularly as these tumors may appear deceptively “low-grade” yet still exhibit aggressive behavior. Recently devised, validated and reproducible etiology and pattern-based tumor classification systems for endocervical adenocarcinomas appear to offer more effective risk stratification than tumor grading and, in the future, these systems may render the provision of a tumor grade redundant.