Histopathologic and Preneoplastic Changes in Tubal Ligation Materials
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sung, S.; Abramovitz, A. Tubal Ligation. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Şentürk, M.B.; Budak, M.S.; Toğrul, C.; Tahaoğlu, A.E.; Balsak, D.; Akgöl, S. The Pregnancy Rates After Tubal Reanastomosis. Okmeydanı Tıp Derg. 2016, 32, 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özkan, H.; Özer, B.U.; Arı, Ö. Sezaryen İle Doğuma Güncel Bir Bakış: Modern Sezaryen Teorisi. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Derg. 2021, 30, 226–235. [Google Scholar]
- Uaamnuichai, S.; Phutrakool, P.; Thammasitchai, N.; Sathitloetsakun, S.; Santibenchakul, S.; Jaisamrarn, U. Does socioeconomic factors and healthcare coverage affect postpartum sterilization uptake in an urban, tertiary hospital? Reprod. Health 2023, 20, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ely, L.K.; Truong, M. The role of opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy vs tubal occlusion or ligation for ovarian cancer prophylaxis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017, 24, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yanai-Inbar, I.; Silverberg, S.G. Mucosal epithelial proliferation of the fallopian tube: Prevalence, clinical associations, and optimal strategy for histopathologic assessment. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2000, 19, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kurman, R.J.; Vang, R.; Junge, J.; Hannibal, C.G.; Kjaer, S.K.; Shih, I.M. Papillary tubal hyperplasia. The putative precursor of ovarian atypical proliferative (borderline) serous tumors, noninvasive implants, and endosalpingiosis. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2011, 35, 1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehn, K.; Gu, L.; Creinin, M.D.; Chen, M.J. Successful completion of total and partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery. Contraception 2018, 98, 232–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koç, N.; Ayas, S.; Uygur, L. The association of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma with gynecologic pathologies and its role in pelvic serous cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014, 134, 486–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aslani, F.S.; Maleknasab, M.; Akbarzadeh-Jahromi, M. Fallopian tube epithelial changes in ovarian serous tumors compared with control group: A single-center study. Niger. Med. J. 2019, 60, 47. [Google Scholar]
- Luke, S.; Addae-Konadu, K.; Davidson, B.; Kuller, J.; Dotters-Katz, S. Benefits and Risks of Bilateral Salpingectomy Compared with Standard Tubal Ligation During Cesarean Delivery for Permanent Postpartum Contraception. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2022, 77, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ida, T.; Fujiwara, H.; Kiriu, T.; Taniguchi, Y.; Kohyama, A. Relationship between the precursors of high grade serous ovarian cancer and patient characteristics: Decreased incidence of the p53 signature in pregnant women. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019, 30, e96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gaitskell, K.; Green, J.; Pirie, K.; Reeves, G.; Beral, V.; on behalf of the Million Women Study Collaborators. Tubal ligation and ovarian cancer risk in a large cohort: Substantial variation by histological type. Int. J. Cancer 2016, 138, 1076–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.; Kim, Y.H.; Kim, Y.B.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.W.; Park, M.H.; Park, J.H.; Rhee, J.H.; Lim, M.C.; Hong, J.S. Bilateral salpingectomy to reduce the risk of ovarian/fallopian/peritoneal cancer in women at average risk: A position statement of the Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (KSOG). Obstet. Gynecol. Sci. 2018, 61, 542–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sungu, N.; Kiran, N.U.; Tatli Dogan, H.; Kilicarslan, A.; Karakok, E.; Akyol, M.E. Evaluation of p53 and Ki67 expression profiles in basal cell carcinomas in a usual and an unusual location. Turk Patoloji Derg. 2018, 34, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gül, A.; Şimşek, Y.; Şahin, G. The Review of the Cases of Tubal Sterilization Which Were Performed in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yüzüncü Yıl University. Van Med. J. 2000, 7, 57–59. [Google Scholar]
- Christopher, G.L. Lalana Newborn Resuscitation. J. Clin. Med. Res. 2021, 2, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno, J.M.; Bartual, E.; Carmona, M.; Araico, F.; Miranda, J.A.; Herruzo, A.J. Changes in the rate of tubal ligation done after cesarean section. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2001, 97, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandelbaum, R.S.; Matsuzaki, S.; Sangara, R.N.; Klar, M.; Matsushima, K.; Roman, L.D.; Paulson, R.J.; Wright, J.D.; Matsuo, K. Paradigm shift from tubal ligation to opportunistic salpingectomy at cesarean delivery in the United States. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021, 225, 399.e1–399.e32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werawatakul, Y.; Prasit, M.; Leelapongwattana, K.; Kleebkaow, P. Evaluation of female sterilization and tubal tissue confirmation at Srinagarind Hospital. J. Med. Assoc. Thail. 2012, 95, 1252. [Google Scholar]
- Yener, A.; Giray, B. Pregnancy Outcomes After Tubal Reanastomosis: A Novel Technique. Dicle Tıp Derg. 2021, 48, 839–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akalın, A.; Bostancı, Ş. Aile planlaması yöntemi kullanan üreme çağındaki kadınlarda cinsel fonksiyonlar ve cinsel yaşam kalitesi. Androloji Bülteni (Androl. Bullettin) 2022, 24, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piek, J.M. Hereditary Serous Ovarian Carcinogenesis, a Hypothesis. Ph.D. Thesis, Medicine, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Elnory, M.A.; Elmantwe, A. Impact of bilateral total salpingectomy versus standard tubal ligation at time of cesarean section on ovarian reserve: A randomized controlled trial. Evid. Based Women’s Health J. 2019, 9, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, C.B.; Alabaster, A.; Simmons, S.; Garcia, C.; Martin, M.; McBride-Allen, S.; Littell, R.D. Salpingectomy for sterilization: Change in practice in a large integrated health care system, 2011–2016. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 130, 961–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rigby, C.H.; Aljassim, F.; Powell, S.G.; Wyatt, J.N.; Hill, C.J.; Hapangama, D.K. The immune cell profile of human fallopian tubes in health and benign pathology: A systematic review. J. Reprod. Immunol. 2022, 152, 103646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hunt, J.L.; Lynn, A.A. Histologic features of surgically removed fallopian tubes. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2002, 126, 951–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhattacharya, N.; Perween, S.; Gupta, K. Histopathological study of surgically resected specimens of fallopian tube. Int. J. Clin. Diagn. Pathol. 2020, 3, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuhn, E.; Kurman, R.J.; Sehdev, A.S.; Shih, I.M. Ki-67 labeling index as an adjunct in the diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2012, 31, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sowamber, R.; Nelson, O.; Dodds, L.; DeCastro, V.; Paudel, I.; Milea, A.; Considine, M.; Cope, L.; Pinto, A.; Schlumbrecht, M.; et al. Integrative transcriptome analyses of the human fallopian tube: Fimbria and ampulla—Site of origin of serous carcinoma of the ovary. Cancers 2020, 12, 1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, E.Y.; Mehra, K.; Mehrad, M.; Ning, G.; Miron, A.; Mutter, G.L.; Monte, N.; Quade, B.J.; McKeon, F.D.; Yassin, Y.; et al. Secretory cell outgrowth, PAX2 and serous carcinogenesis in the Fallopian tube. J. Pathol. 2010, 222, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, W.; Sung, C.J.; Cao, P.; Zhang, Z.F.; Cai, R.; Godwin, T.A.; Kramer, E.E.; Lauchlan, S.C. Early occurrence and prognostic significance of p53 alteration in primary carcinoma of the fallopian tube. Gynecol. Oncol. 1997, 64, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittal, N.; Srinivasan, R.; Gupta, N.; Rajwanshi, A.; Nijhawan, R.; Gautam, U.; Sood, S.; Dhaliwal, L. Secretory cell outgrowths, p53 signatures, and serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma in the fallopian tubes of patients with sporadic pelvic serous carcinoma. Indian J. Pathol. Microbiol. 2016, 59, 481. [Google Scholar]
- Briseño Campos, A.G.; Cruz Rodríguez, A.; García Perales, M.O.; Serna Vela, F.J.; Camarillo Elizalde, D.G.; Robles Martínez, M.D. Incidence of intraepithelial fallopian tube neoplasias in Mexican women over 40 years of age that underwent elective hysterectomy. J. Ovarian Res. 2019, 12, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Visvanathan, K.; Shaw, P.; May, B.J.; Bahadirli-Talbott, A.; Kaushiva, A.; Risch, H.; Narod, S.; Wang, T.L.; Parkash, V.; Vang, R.; et al. Fallopian tube lesions in women at high risk for ovarian cancer: A multicenter study. Cancer Prev. Res. 2018, 11, 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tissot, M.; Lecointre, L.; Faller, E.; Afors, K.; Akladios, C.; Audebert, A. Clinical presentation of endometriosis identified at interval laparoscopic tubal sterilization: Prospective series of 465 cases. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2017, 46, 647–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
NCL ≤ 2 | NCL ≥ 3 | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | <25 years | 2 (1.45%) | 1 (0.72%) | 0.024 |
26–30 years | 19 (13.77%) | 7 (5.07%) | ||
31–35 years | 44 (31.89%) | 4 (2.89%) | ||
>40 years | 16 (11.59%) | 1 (0.72%) | ||
Gravity Number | ≤3 | 18 (13.04%) | 5 (3.63%) | 0.90 |
4–6 | 83 (60.14%) | 11 (7.98%) | ||
6–9 | 16 (11.60%) | 1 (0.72%) | ||
≥10 | 3 (2.17%) | 1 (0.72%) | ||
Parity Number | ≤3 | 86 (62.32%) | 2 (1.44%) | 0.71 |
4–6 | 28 (20.29%) | 3 (2.18%) | ||
6–9 | 5 (3.63%) | 1 (0.72%) | ||
≥10 | 1 (0.72%) | 1 (0.72%) | ||
Papillary Hyperplasia | Absent (n) | 115 (83.34%) | 5 (3.63%) | 0.92 |
Present (n) | 16 (11.59%) | 2 (1.44%) | ||
Tufting | Absent (n) | 104 (88.41%) | 16 (11.59%) | 0.003 |
Present (n) | 10 (7.2%) | 8 (92.8%) | ||
Inflammatory cells | Absent (n) | 84 (60.86) | 8 (92.8%) | 0.029 |
Present (n) | 36 (39.14%) | 10 (7.2%) |
Parameters | Scores | N/% |
---|---|---|
Ki-67 | 1 | 127 (92.02%) |
2 | 8 (5.79%) | |
3 | 3 (2.17%) | |
p53 | 0 | 50 (36.23%) |
1 | 38 (27.53%) | |
2 | 27(19.56%) | |
3 | 18 (13.04%) | |
4 | 5 (3.62%) | |
SCOUT | 0 | 130 (94.21%) |
1 | 8 (5.79%) | |
STIL | 0 | 137 (99.28%) |
1 | 1 (0.72%) | |
p53 signature | 0 | 125 (90.58%) |
1 | 13 (9.42%) |
SCOUT | p53 Score | p53 Signature | Kİ-67 Score | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.4 | 0.036 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Gravity | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.016 |
Parity | 0.6 | 0.7 | >0.9 | 0.049 |
Atypia | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.3 |
NCL | 0.3 | 0.7 | >0.9 | 0.7 |
Papillary Hyperplasia | <0.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | >0.9 |
Tufting | 0.14 | 0.030 | >0.9 | 0.6 |
Inflammatory cells | 0.4 | 0.3 | <0.9 | 0.7 |
SCOUT | - | 0.3 | 0.028 | >0.9 |
p53 | 0.3 | - | <0.001 | 0.053 |
p53 Signature | 0.028 | <0.001 | - | 0.020 |
Ki-67 | >0.9 | 0.053 | 0.02 | - |
Variant | N | OR 1 | 95% CI 1 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 138 | 0.88 | 0.79, 0.98 | 0.024 |
Gravity | 138 | 0.98 | 0.74, 1.23 | 0.90 |
Parity | 138 | 0.94 | 0.63, 1.27 | 0.71 |
p53 | 138 | 0.17 | ||
0 | — | — | ||
1 | 0.30 | 0.06, 1.07 | ||
2 | 0.28 | 0.04, 1.17 | ||
3 | 0.44 | 0.06, 1.90 | ||
4 | 0.00 | |||
Ki-67 | 138 | 0.65 | ||
0 | — | — | ||
1 | 0.92 | 0.05, 5.67 | ||
2 | 0.00 | |||
Tufting | 138 | 0.003 | ||
0 | — | — | ||
1 | 5.20 | 1.76, 15.3 | ||
p53 signature | 138 | 0.52 | ||
0 | — | — | ||
1 | 0.53 | 0.03, 2.96 | ||
SCOUT | 138 | 0.35 | ||
0 | — | — | ||
1 | 2.37 | 0.33, 11.4 | ||
Papillary Hyperplasia | 138 | 0.92 | ||
0 | — | — | ||
1 | 1.12 | 0.06, 7.12 | ||
Atypia | 138 | 0.088 | ||
0 | — | — | ||
1 | 0.00 | |||
Inflammation | 138 | 0.29 | ||
0 | — | — | ||
1 | 0.58 | 0.21, 1.63 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ömeroğlu, E.; Ünlü, Y.; Uğur Kılınç, A.N.; Günler, T.; Günenc, O. Histopathologic and Preneoplastic Changes in Tubal Ligation Materials. Medicina 2023, 59, 2117. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122117
Ömeroğlu E, Ünlü Y, Uğur Kılınç AN, Günler T, Günenc O. Histopathologic and Preneoplastic Changes in Tubal Ligation Materials. Medicina. 2023; 59(12):2117. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122117
Chicago/Turabian StyleÖmeroğlu, Ethem, Yaşar Ünlü, Ayşe Nur Uğur Kılınç, Tuğba Günler, and Oğuzhan Günenc. 2023. "Histopathologic and Preneoplastic Changes in Tubal Ligation Materials" Medicina 59, no. 12: 2117. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122117
APA StyleÖmeroğlu, E., Ünlü, Y., Uğur Kılınç, A. N., Günler, T., & Günenc, O. (2023). Histopathologic and Preneoplastic Changes in Tubal Ligation Materials. Medicina, 59(12), 2117. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59122117