Deciphering Your Pathology and Stage
At a Glance
Your endometrial cancer stage is based on surgical findings, pathology, and, under FIGO 2023, the tumor’s molecular subtype. POLE, MMRd, NSMP, and p53-abnormal results can change risk assessment and guide treatment, while MMR testing may identify Lynch syndrome.
Pathology and staging have undergone a revolution in recent years. While doctors used to rely solely on what they could see under a microscope, standard care now recommends using the tumor’s genetic “fingerprint” to create a more precise roadmap for your care. The FIGO 2023 staging system integrates these molecular findings with traditional surgical results [1].
The Four Molecular Subtypes
Your pathology report should ideally include a molecular classification. These tests look at the tumor’s DNA, not necessarily your inherited genetics (with one important exception discussed below). This tells us about the biology of the tumor—how it behaves and how it might respond to treatment [2].
- POLE-mutated: These tumors have a specific mutation in the POLE gene. While they may appear fast-growing under a microscope, they generally have an excellent prognosis [3]. Because they are so biologically favorable, having this mutation can actually “downstage” an early cancer [1].
- MMRd (Mismatch Repair Deficient): These cells have lost the ability to fix DNA errors. This subtype is important for two reasons: it may respond very well to immunotherapy, and it can be a sign of Lynch syndrome, an inherited genetic condition [4][5].
- NSMP (No Specific Molecular Profile): This is the most common group. These tumors don’t have the other markers, and their behavior is usually predicted by traditional factors like how deep the cancer grew into the muscle [3][6].
- p53-abnormal: This is considered the most aggressive subtype. Because these tumors are more likely to spread, finding this profile can “upstage” an early cancer even if it appears limited to the uterus [1][3].
Traditional Pathology Terms
Even with molecular testing, traditional “look-and-see” pathology remains vital:
- Histology: This is the cell type. Endometrioid is the most common and often less aggressive. Serous, Clear Cell, and Carcinosarcoma are classified as “aggressive histologies” in the new FIGO system [1][7].
- Grade: This describes how much the cancer cells look like normal tissue. Grade 1 (low-grade) looks more normal; Grade 3 (high-grade) looks very different and grows faster [8].
- Myometrial Invasion: This measures how deep the cancer has grown into the myometrium (the muscular wall of the uterus). Invasion of more than 50% increases the risk of the cancer spreading to lymph nodes [8][9].
- LVSI (Lymphovascular Space Invasion): This tells us if cancer cells have found their way into the small “pipes” (lymph or blood vessels) within the uterine wall. FIGO 2023 now distinguishes between focal (less than 5 vessels) and substantial (5 or more vessels), with substantial LVSI being a higher risk factor [1][10].
FIGO 2023: An Integrated Stage
Your “stage” (I through IV) describes how far the cancer has spread anatomically. What is new is that your molecular subtype can modify that stage in early disease [1]. For example:
- An early-stage tumor that is confined to the uterus but has a p53-abnormal profile may be upstaged to Stage IIC because of the higher risk [1].
- An early-stage tumor with a POLE mutation may be considered very low risk (Stage IA) even if it has deeper muscle invasion [1].
Note: Molecular staging notation is complex. Your final stage must be assigned from your complete surgical and pathology findings.
Lynch Syndrome: Why MMR Testing Matters
Many current guidelines recommend universal screening for every endometrial cancer patient using MMR (Mismatch Repair) or MSI testing [5].
- The Goal: To see if your cancer was caused by Lynch syndrome, which increases the risk of other cancers (like colon cancer) for you and your family [5][11].
- The Pathway: If your tumor is “MMRd” (specifically showing loss of MLH1/PMS2), the lab will often perform a follow-up test called MLH1 promoter methylation. If that test is negative, it strongly suggests Lynch syndrome, and you should be referred to a genetic counselor for a blood test [12][13]. If the tumor shows loss of MSH2, MSH6, or isolated PMS2, this usually leads directly to a genetics referral.
Checklist: Is Your Pathology Report Complete?
A modern, actionable pathology report should ideally include all of the following:
- [ ] Histologic Type (e.g., Endometrioid, Serous) [1]
- [ ] Grade (1, 2, or 3) [8]
- [ ] Depth of Myometrial Invasion (e.g., <50% or >50%) [1]
- [ ] LVSI Status (None, Focal, or Substantial) [1]
- [ ] MMR/MSI Status (for Lynch screening and immunotherapy) [5]
- [ ] p53 Status (Normal/Wild-type or Abnormal/Mutant) [1]
- [ ] POLE Mutation Status (Pathogenic mutation present or absent) [1]
- [ ] Cervical Stromal Invasion (Whether it has spread to the neck of the uterus) [1]
- [ ] Lymph Node Status (If nodes were removed, were they positive for micrometastasis or macrometastasis?) [1]
Common questions in this guide
What do the molecular subtypes on my endometrial cancer report mean?
Can molecular testing change my endometrial cancer stage?
What do grade, myometrial invasion, and LVSI mean?
Why did my doctor order MMR or MSI testing?
Does an MMR-deficient tumor mean I have Lynch syndrome?
Which results should be included in a complete pathology report?
One line in your results can change your plan.
A negative MLH1 promoter methylation test strongly suggests Lynch syndrome, which points toward a genetic counselor referral. We check your results against the latest research to help you prepare for what’s next.
Get notified when new evidence is published on endometrial cancer.
We monitor PubMed for new peer-reviewed studies on this topic and email a short summary when something meaningful changes.
References
References (13)
- 1
FIGO staging of endometrial cancer: 2023.
Berek JS, Matias-Guiu X, Creutzberg C, et al.
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2023; (162(2)):383-394 doi:10.1002/ijgo.14923.
PMID: 37337978 - 2
New clinicopathological concept of endometrial carcinoma with integration of histological features and molecular profiles.
Yasuda M
Pathology international 2024; (74(10)):557-573 doi:10.1111/pin.13471.
PMID: 39175262 - 3
Molecular Classification of the PORTEC-3 Trial for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer: Impact on Prognosis and Benefit From Adjuvant Therapy.
León-Castillo A, de Boer SM, Powell ME, et al.
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020; (38(29)):3388-3397 doi:10.1200/JCO.20.00549.
PMID: 32749941 - 4
Biomarker-driven therapy in endometrial cancer.
Karpel H, Slomovitz B, Coleman RL, Pothuri B
International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society 2023; (33(3)):343-350 doi:10.1136/ijgc-2022-003676.
PMID: 36878569 - 5
Clinical utility of diagnosing Lynch syndrome in gynecologic oncology: a joint statement from four Japanese academic societies.
Sato S, Masuda K, Oda K, et al.
International journal of clinical oncology 2026; (31(9)):1742-1755 doi:10.1007/s10147-026-03126-8.
PMID: 42435282 - 6
Personalizing endometrial cancer care beyond histology: clinical applications and limits of molecular classification.
Marchetti M, Panizzolo E, Caruso G, et al.
International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society 2026; (36(9)):104882 doi:10.1016/j.ijgc.2026.104882.
PMID: 42617416 - 7
The struggle against endometrial cancer: ten years of experience of a tertiary center.
Bilgi A, Guler AH, Kulhan M, et al.
Ginekologia polska 2022; (93(5)):351-360 doi:10.5603/GP.a2021.0138.
PMID: 34155618 - 8
How deep is too deep? Assessing myometrial invasion as a predictor of distant recurrence in stage I endometrioid endometrial cancer.
Dinoi G, Garzon S, Weaver A, et al.
International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society 2024; (34(9)):1389-1398.
PMID: 38821549 - 9
Association of Myometrial Invasion With Lymphovascular Space Invasion, Lymph Node Metastasis, Recurrence, and Overall Survival in Endometrial Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 79 Studies With 68,870 Patients.
Wang J, Xu P, Yang X, et al.
Frontiers in oncology 2021; (11()):762329 doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.762329.
PMID: 34746002 - 10
Lymphovascular Space Invasion in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer (LySEC): Patterns of Recurrence and Predictors. A Multicentre Retrospective Cohort Study of the Spain Gynecologic Oncology Group.
Oliver-Perez MR, Padilla-Iserte P, Arencibia-Sanchez O, et al.
Cancers 2023; (15(9)) doi:10.3390/cancers15092612.
PMID: 37174081 - 11
Genetic counseling and cascade genetic testing in Lynch syndrome.
Hampel H
Familial cancer 2016; (15(3)):423-7 doi:10.1007/s10689-016-9893-5.
PMID: 26969309 - 12
Universal screening for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancers: frequency of germline mutations and identification of patients with Lynch-like syndrome.
Dillon JL, Gonzalez JL, DeMars L, et al.
Human pathology 2017; (70()):121-128 doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2017.10.022.
PMID: 29107668 - 13
The proportion of endometrial tumours associated with Lynch syndrome (PETALS): A prospective cross-sectional study.
Ryan NAJ, McMahon R, Tobi S, et al.
PLoS medicine 2020; (17(9)):e1003263 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003263.
PMID: 32941469
This page explains endometrial cancer pathology, molecular testing, and FIGO staging for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Your gynecologic oncologist and pathologist should interpret your report and assign your final stage.