[107] Histological re-subclassification of EMA is supposed to be necessarily established to divide them into low-grade EMA and high-grade
EMA with the aid of next-generation sequencing technologies for integrated genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic characterization.[108] Not surprisingly, it has been demonstrated that the endometrial SEA shares genomic features with the ovarian SEA and basal-like breast cancer, and that the genomic features STA-9090 order of endometrial carcinomas may affect their aggressive behavior.[108] Using mutation profiles as an adjunct to morphological subclassification is supposed to lead to improvement of the diagnostic reproducibility of endometrial carcinomas and serve in innovating targeted therapies for patients with endometrial carcinoma.[77] Taking advantage of genomic analysis results will beneficially lead to the exploration of routinely available antibodies, namely, so-called biomarkers that will be Pexidartinib usable in immunohistochemistry. Consequently, these immunohistochemical markers could contribute to the identification of high-grade endometrial carcinomas that fail to be diagnosed based on conventional histological criteria, or seemingly low-grade endometrial carcinomas even having the potential of high-grade endometrial carcinomas. There are still numerous problems remaining regarding
the efforts to reduce the disagreement regarding high-grade endometrial carcinomas, especially endometrial carcinomas with intratumoral heterogeneity or ambiguity. In the exploration of new therapeutic regimens for endometrial carcinomas, morphological diagnostic confirmation in close association with the clinical outcome is of most practical importance. Finally, the nationwide establishment of a central pathological review system is considered to become one of the strategic attempts to keep the mortality rate of endometrial carcinomas as low as possible. There is no conflict of interest which needs to be to be disclosed. “
“To compare the classical double-layer uterine
closure to a double-layer purse-string uterine closure (Turan technique) in cesarean section regarding short- and long-term results. Patients were randomized into either the double-layer purse-string uterine closure 4��8C arm (study group, 84 patients) or the classical double-layer uterine closure arm (control group, 84 patients). For short-term comparison, a detailed transvaginal ultrasound examination was planned in all patients 6 weeks after the operation and a wedge-shaped defect in the uterine incision scar was accepted as uterine scar defect and recorded. For the long-term comparison, subsequent pregnancies of these patients were followed up for any complication. The number of patients with ultrasonographically visible uterine scar defect was 12 (23.5% of all scar defects) in the study group whereas it was 39 (76.5% of all scar defects) in the control group (P < 0.001, χ2 = 15.42).