Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 5, 2026

Author Spotlight: Analysis of Ovarian Anatomy in Migratory Insects to Overcome Experimental Challenges
Published on: July 14, 2023
FIGO Versus Silverberg Grading Systems in Ovarian Endometrioid Carcinoma: A Comparative Prognostic Analysis
Carlos Parra-Herran1,2, Dina Bassiouny1,3, Danielle Vicus4,5
1Departments of Laboratory Medicine.
Abstract:
The International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) grading system for endometrial carcinoma is currently applied to ovarian endometrioid carcinoma (OEC) in many practices. However, previous reports claim superior prognostication by using the Silverberg grading system for ovarian carcinoma. Thus, a thorough comparison between FIGO and Silverberg in OEC is still warranted. A total of 72 OECs diagnosed at our institution were independently graded using both systems. Grade (G) following Silverberg was based on combined scores for architecture, nuclear atypia, and mitotic activity. FIGO grading was based on the % of nonsquamous solid component; severe atypia warranted upgrade to the architectural FIGO grade (G1 to G2 or G2 to G3). Case grouping by grade was correlated with disease-free (DFS), disease-specific (DSS), and overall (OS) survival. Eleven (15.3%) OECs were bilateral, 26 (36.1%) had ovarian surface involvement, and 12 (16.7%) had lymphovascular space invasion. Forty-seven OECs were stage I (65%), 16 (22%) stage II, and 9 (13%) stage III. Median follow-up period was 62 months (range: 1 to 179 mo). Median DFS was 60.5 months (1 to 179 mo); median OS was 61 months (1 to 179 mo). Sixteen (22%) OECs recurred and 9 (13%) patiets died of disease. In univariate analysis, both FIGO and Silverberg correlated significantly with DFS, DSS, and OS (all with P<0.05). However, when compared in multivariate analysis, only Silverberg retained statistical correlation with survival (P<0.05). G1+G2 OEC by Silverberg had significantly better DFS, DSS, and OS compared with G3; such separation was not seen with FIGO. Survival was similar in Silverberg G1 and G2 tumors even 5 years after diagnosis, whereas FIGO G2 tumors had survival approaching G1 in the first 5 years, but declined after the 5-year mark approaching G3 tumors. Tumor laterality, lymphovascular space invasion, and stage also correlated with outcome. Stage showed prognostication superior to all other variables in multivariate analysis. As currently defined, the Silverberg grading system is a better predictor of survival than FIGO. Such differences may be explained by the G2 OEC groups, with G2 Silverberg clustering with G1 tumors, and having a more favorable behavior compared with G2 FIGO. Thus, Silverberg may be preferable in order to stratify patients in low and high-risk categories for prognosis and disease management.
More Related Videos
07:13Comparison of Predictive Performance of Three Lymph Node Staging Systems in Colorectal Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Based on Machine Learning Model
Published on: April 18, 2025
08:25Mass Cytometry Analysis of Systemic and Local Immune Responses in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: April 25, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Comparative Excretory Systems
Sieve Analysis and Grading Curves
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Graded Potential
Graded potentials fall into two categories: depolarizing and hyperpolarizing. Depolarizing graded potentials typically occur when sodium (Na+) or...
Types of Aggregate Grading
Well-graded aggregates include a complete range of necessary size fractions that fit together to create a dense matrix with minimal voids, represented by a smooth, continuous gradation curve. This type of grading ensures good...
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...