L Dubeau1, R Drapkin. 1. Department of Pathology, USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Hospital, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The traditional view of epithelial ovarian cancer asserts that all tumor subtypes share a common origin in the ovarian surface epithelium (OSE) DESIGN: A literature review was carried out to summarize the emerging understanding of extraovarian sources of epithelial ovarian carcinomas. RESULTS: Historically, there were no diagnostic criteria for documenting the origin of ovarian epithelial carcinomas. Moreover, there are no normal epithelial tissues in the ovary with morphologic similarities to these tumors. In fact, no precursor lesions have ever been reproducibly identified in the ovary. However, there is a strong correlation between extrauterine Müllerian tissue and the development of ovarian carcinomas, tumors of low malignant potential, and cystadenomas. The most recent support for this hypothesis comes from the careful analysis of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy specimens from BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. These studies showed that a significant majority of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas, the most common subtype, arise from the fallopian tube fimbriae rather than the OSE. CONCLUSIONS: Mounting evidence indicates that the vast majority of epithelial ovarian carcinomas are not ovarian in origin. Extrauterine Müllerian epithelium from various sites in the reproductive tract likely accounts for the diverse morphology and behavior of these tumors.
BACKGROUND: The traditional view of epithelial ovarian cancer asserts that all tumor subtypes share a common origin in the ovarian surface epithelium (OSE) DESIGN: A literature review was carried out to summarize the emerging understanding of extraovarian sources of epithelial ovarian carcinomas. RESULTS: Historically, there were no diagnostic criteria for documenting the origin of ovarian epithelial carcinomas. Moreover, there are no normal epithelial tissues in the ovary with morphologic similarities to these tumors. In fact, no precursor lesions have ever been reproducibly identified in the ovary. However, there is a strong correlation between extrauterine Müllerian tissue and the development of ovarian carcinomas, tumors of low malignant potential, and cystadenomas. The most recent support for this hypothesis comes from the careful analysis of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy specimens from BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. These studies showed that a significant majority of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas, the most common subtype, arise from the fallopian tube fimbriae rather than the OSE. CONCLUSIONS: Mounting evidence indicates that the vast majority of epithelial ovarian carcinomas are not ovarian in origin. Extrauterine Müllerian epithelium from various sites in the reproductive tract likely accounts for the diverse morphology and behavior of these tumors.
Authors: Daniela M Dinulescu; Tan A Ince; Bradley J Quade; Sarah A Shafer; Denise Crowley; Tyler Jacks Journal: Nat Med Date: 2004-12-26 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Ludmila Szabova; Chaoying Yin; Sujata Bupp; Theresa M Guerin; Jerome J Schlomer; Deborah B Householder; Maureen L Baran; Ming Yi; Yurong Song; Wenping Sun; Jonathan E McDunn; Philip L Martin; Terry Van Dyke; Simone Difilippantonio Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Nathan J Bowen; Sanjay Logani; Erin B Dickerson; Laura B Kapa; Mariam Akhtar; Benedict B Benigno; John F McDonald Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2006-10-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Amir A Jazaeri; Jennifer L Bryant; Hong Park; Hui Li; Neetu Dahiya; Mark H Stoler; James Stuart Ferriss; Anindya Dutta Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Rong Wu; Neali Hendrix-Lucas; Rork Kuick; Yali Zhai; Donald R Schwartz; Aytekin Akyol; Samir Hanash; David E Misek; Hidetaka Katabuchi; Bart O Williams; Eric R Fearon; Kathleen R Cho Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Britton Trabert; Tim Waterboer; Annika Idahl; Nicole Brenner; Louise A Brinton; Julia Butt; Sally B Coburn; Patricia Hartge; Katrin Hufnagel; Federica Inturrisi; Jolanta Lissowska; Alexander Mentzer; Beata Peplonska; Mark E Sherman; Gillian S Wills; Sarah C Woodhall; Michael Pawlita; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Alexia T Kedves; Scott Gleim; Xiaoyou Liang; Dennis M Bonal; Frederic Sigoillot; Fred Harbinski; Sneha Sanghavi; Christina Benander; Elizabeth George; Prafulla C Gokhale; Quang-De Nguyen; Paul T Kirschmeier; Robert J Distel; Jeremy Jenkins; Michael S Goldberg; William C Forrester Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Anthony N Karnezis; Kathleen R Cho; C Blake Gilks; Celeste Leigh Pearce; David G Huntsman Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Britton Trabert; Sally B Coburn; Andrea Mariani; Hannah P Yang; Philip S Rosenberg; Gretchen L Gierach; Nicolas Wentzensen; Kathy A Cronin; Mark E Sherman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rong Wu; Yali Zhai; Rork Kuick; Anthony N Karnezis; Paloma Garcia; Anum Naseem; Tom C Hu; Eric R Fearon; Kathleen R Cho Journal: J Pathol Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Alison M Karst; Paul M Jones; Natalie Vena; Azra H Ligon; Joyce F Liu; Michelle S Hirsch; Dariush Etemadmoghadam; David D L Bowtell; Ronny Drapkin Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 12.701