Literature DB >> 23000388

Histopathologic features of ovarian borderline tumors are not predictive of clinical outcome.

Stefanie Avril1, Ellen Hahn, Katja Specht, Steffen Hauptmann, Cornelia Höss, Marion Kiechle, Heinz Höfler, Barbara Schmalfeldt.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Ovarian borderline tumors (BOTs) generally have an excellent prognosis, although recurrences and malignant transformation can occur. Our aim was to compare clinicopathologic features of BOT with clinical outcome.
METHODS: In seventy consecutive BOTs clinicopathologic parameters, tumor cell proliferation (Ki67) and in selected cases KRAS, BRAF and p53 mutational status were analyzed with recurrence-free and overall survival as the endpoints.
RESULTS: Sixty-one (87%) patients presented with FIGO stage I, 3 stage II, and 6 stage III. Thirty-four patients had serous and 36 mucinous BOT (30 intestinal and 6 endocervical subtypes). Non-invasive peritoneal implants occurred in 9 patients, and no invasive implants were observed. Recurrence-free and overall survival rates were 91% and 99%, respectively, at a mean follow-up of 63 months. Disease recurrence occurred in 6 cases (all FIGO stage I) including 3 serous, 1 mucinous-intestinal, and 2 mucinous-endocervical subtypes. Mean time to recurrence was 27 months (range 8-68). The recurrence rate following fertility-conserving surgery was 31% (5/16) compared to 2% (1/54) after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Neither peritoneal implants (9/70), micropapillary pattern (2/34), microinvasion (4/70), nor increased tumor cell proliferation was associated with a higher recurrence rate. The frequency of KRAS or BRAF mutations was 50% (3/6 recurrences and 3/6 controls; 4 KRAS, 2 BRAF mutations). No p53 mutations (0/12) were detected in primary or recurrent BOTs.
CONCLUSIONS: Histopathologic parameters were not predictive of BOT recurrence including previously suggested risk factors such as micropapillary pattern and microinvasion. However, fertility-conserving surgery and incomplete surgical staging were associated with a higher risk for recurrence.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23000388     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.08.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  6 in total

1.  Adhering to the 2014 WHO terminology on borderline ovarian tumors.

Authors:  Jaime Prat
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 2.  Histopathological markers of treatment response and recurrence risk in ovarian cancers and borderline tumors.

Authors:  S Avril
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 3.  Ovarian borderline tumors in the 2014 WHO classification: evolving concepts and diagnostic criteria.

Authors:  Steffen Hauptmann; Katrin Friedrich; Raymond Redline; Stefanie Avril
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2016-12-27       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 4.  The Putative Role of TP53 Alterations and p53 Expression in Borderline Ovarian Tumors - Correlation with Clinicopathological Features and Prognosis: A Mini-Review.

Authors:  Andrzej Semczuk; Marek Gogacz; Anna Semczuk-Sikora; Maciej Jóźwik; Tomasz Rechberger
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 4.207

5.  Preoperative HE4 and ROMA values do not improve the CA125 diagnostic value for borderline tumors of the ovary (BOT) - a study of the TOC Consortium.

Authors:  Elena Ioana Braicu; Toon Van Gorp; Mani Nassir; Rolf Richter; Radoslav Chekerov; Khayal Gasimli; Dirk Timmerman; Ignace Vergote; Jalid Sehouli
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 4.234

6.  The safety of fertility and ipsilateral ovary procedures for borderline ovarian tumors.

Authors:  Tong Lou; Fang Yuan; Ying Feng; Shuzhen Wang; Huimin Bai; Zhenyu Zhang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-12-06
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.