Koji Matsuo1, Hiroko Machida2, Rachel S Mandelbaum3, Brendan H Grubbs4, Lynda D Roman5, Anil K Sood6, David M Gershenson6. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: koji.matsuo@med.usc.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mucinous borderline ovarian tumor (mucinous-BOT) and invasive well-differentiated mucinous ovarian cancer (mucinous-OC) are often histopathologically misclassified. The objective of this study was to examine differences in clinico-pathological characteristics and outcomes of these two entities. METHODS: This is a retrospective population-based study examining the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program from 1988 to 2000. Stage I mucinous-BOTs and stage I well-differentiated mucinous-OC were compared for patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and outcomes. Propensity score matching and multivariable analysis were used to assess cause-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS: A total of 2130 mucinous-BOT and 581 mucinous-OC cases were examined for analysis. On multivariable analysis, women with mucinous-OC were more likely to be older, Eastern U.S. residents, and have undergone hysterectomy or lymphadenectomy compared to those with mucinous-BOT, and the number of women diagnosed with mucinous-OC decreased over time (all, P < 0.05). Mucinous-OCs were more likely to be stage T1c and have a smaller tumor size as compared to mucinous-BOT (both, adjusted-P < 0.05). After propensity score matching, women with mucinous-OC had significantly poorer CSS compared to those with mucinous-BOT on multivariable analysis (10-year rates: 92.7% versus 97.5%, adjusted-hazard ratio [HR] 2.03, P = 0.007). Similar results were observed among subgroups for reproductive age, stage T1a disease, large tumor, and unstaged cases (all, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Stage I mucinous-BOT and stage I invasive well-differentiated mucinous-OC have distinct differences in clinical characteristics and patient survival. The inability to conduct centralized pathology review in our study limits our conclusions given the recognized issue of misclassification of mucinous-BOT and mucinous-OC, but further highlights the importance of making the proper histopathological diagnosis for invasive cancer when the ovarian tumor is of mucinous histology.
OBJECTIVE:Mucinous borderline ovarian tumor (mucinous-BOT) and invasive well-differentiated mucinous ovarian cancer (mucinous-OC) are often histopathologically misclassified. The objective of this study was to examine differences in clinico-pathological characteristics and outcomes of these two entities. METHODS: This is a retrospective population-based study examining the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program from 1988 to 2000. Stage I mucinous-BOTs and stage I well-differentiated mucinous-OC were compared for patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and outcomes. Propensity score matching and multivariable analysis were used to assess cause-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS: A total of 2130 mucinous-BOT and 581 mucinous-OC cases were examined for analysis. On multivariable analysis, women with mucinous-OC were more likely to be older, Eastern U.S. residents, and have undergone hysterectomy or lymphadenectomy compared to those with mucinous-BOT, and the number of women diagnosed with mucinous-OC decreased over time (all, P < 0.05). Mucinous-OCs were more likely to be stage T1c and have a smaller tumor size as compared to mucinous-BOT (both, adjusted-P < 0.05). After propensity score matching, women with mucinous-OC had significantly poorer CSS compared to those with mucinous-BOT on multivariable analysis (10-year rates: 92.7% versus 97.5%, adjusted-hazard ratio [HR] 2.03, P = 0.007). Similar results were observed among subgroups for reproductive age, stage T1a disease, large tumor, and unstaged cases (all, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Stage I mucinous-BOT and stage I invasive well-differentiated mucinous-OC have distinct differences in clinical characteristics and patient survival. The inability to conduct centralized pathology review in our study limits our conclusions given the recognized issue of misclassification of mucinous-BOT and mucinous-OC, but further highlights the importance of making the proper histopathological diagnosis for invasive cancer when the ovarian tumor is of mucinous histology.
Authors: David J Nusbaum; Rachel S Mandelbaum; Hiroko Machida; Shinya Matsuzaki; Lynda D Roman; Anil K Sood; David M Gershenson; Koji Matsuo Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Hiroko Machida; Shinya Matsuzaki; Brendan H Grubbs; Maximilian Klar; Lynda D Roman; Anil K Sood; David M Gershenson; Jason D Wright Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Hiroko Machida; Brendan H Grubbs; Shinya Matsuzaki; Maximilian Klar; Lynda D Roman; Anil K Sood; David M Gershenson Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 5.482