The presence and location of epithelial implants and implants with epithelial proliferation may predict a higher risk of recurrence in serous borderline ovarian tumors: a clinicopathologic study of 188 cases

A nationwide study of ovarian serous borderline tumors in Denmark 1978-2002. Risk of recurrence, and development of ovarian serous carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Absolute risk and risk factors for recurrence and ovarian serous carcinoma following ovarian serous borderline tumors (SBTs) is not well-established.

METHODS

We included all women with SBTs in Denmark, 1978-2002. Diagnoses were confirmed by centralized pathology review and classified as atypical proliferative serous tumor (APST) or noninvasive low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC). Implants were classified as noninvasive or invasive. Medical records were collected and reviewed, and follow-up was obtained. Subsequent diagnoses were also confirmed by centralized pathology review. We examined absolute risk and risk factors for recurrent APST and serous carcinoma using Cox regression.

RESULTS

The absolute serous carcinoma risk after, respectively, 5 and 20years was 5.0% and 13.9% for noninvasive LGSC, and 0.9% and 3.7% for APST. Serous carcinoma risk was significantly higher following noninvasive LGSC compared with APST among stage I patients/patients without implants (HR=5.3; 95% CI: 1.7-16.3), whereas no significant association with tumor type was found in advanced stage patients/patients with implants. Advanced stage - notably invasive implants - bilaterality, surface involvement, and residual disease increased serous carcinoma risk. However, women with stage I APST also had a higher risk than the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

This largest population-based cohort of verified SBTs revealed that women with noninvasive LGSC are significantly more likely to develop serous carcinoma than women with APST, which could not entirely be explained by invasive implants. Although invasive implants was a strong risk factor for serous carcinoma, even women with stage I APST were at increased risk compared with the general population.

Staging for low malignant potential ovarian tumors: a global perspective

OBJECTIVE

We describe current evidence for staging low malignant potential ovarian tumors and their conformity to current consensus guidelines and practice from an international perspective.

DATA SOURCES

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases was conducted for articles published between January 1990 and April 2015.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies on low malignant potential ovarian tumors that evaluated the prognostic value of disease stage, staging vs no staging, complete vs incomplete staging, or discrete components of staging were eligible. Studies that described only crude survival rates were excluded.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Eligible studies were categorized according to their outcome (disease stage, staging procedure, or discrete staging elements). Data were abstracted using a standard form. Inconsistencies on data abstraction were resolved by consensus among the authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Of 1116 studies, 702 were excluded for irrelevance and 364 for not meeting inclusion criteria. Nine studies were excluded for describing crude survival rates without a comparative conclusion. We found that studies supporting the value of defining disease stage or staging procedures (mostly conducted in northern Europe) included more patients than studies that did not find disease stage or staging useful (predominantly from North America, 4072 vs 3951). Disease stage correlated with survival in 13 of 25 studies, whereas none of the studies that evaluated the value of staging found it beneficial (9 studies, 1979 patients). Studies that evaluated isolated components of staging found no benefit to these procedures. Regional guidelines and consensus reviews drew conclusions based on a limited number of studies that generally originated from the same region.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the correlation of stage with survival was mixed, performing staging procedures for low malignant potential ovarian tumors is not supported by the best available evidence. Guidelines in support of staging based their recommendations on a few regional studies and conflict with better-quality data that do not support staging procedures. An international consensus statement is needed to standardize the surgical management of low malignant potential ovarian tumors.

Serous and mucinous borderline ovarian tumours: differences in clinical presentation, high-risk histopathological features, and lethal recurrence rates

BACKGROUND

Mucinous and serous borderline ovarian tumours (mBOTs and sBOTs) are controversial diseases.

OBJECTIVES

With this systematic review we aim to evaluate the different high-risk histopathological features and recurrence rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The PubMed database was searched using two terms: {serous AND [(borderline) OR (low malignant potential)] AND ovarian AND tumour} and {mucinous AND [(borderline) OR (low malignant potential)] AND ovarian AND tumour}.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cohorts of either sBOT or mBOT, peer-reviewed, retrospective, or prospective.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Lethal recurrence data for micropapillary patterns (MPs), microinvasion, non-invasive and invasive implants, and intraepithelial carcinoma (IECA). The primary measure of effect was the odds ratio of lethal recurrence reduction.

RESULTS

Data from patients in 42 studies including 4414 sBOTs and 12 studies including 894 mBOTs were pooled. Of these, 53.3% presented early-stage typical sBOTs, 24.4% presented with MPs, 22.3% presented with microinvasion, 34.4% presented with non-invasive implants, and 7.3% presented with invasive implants. The pooled lethal recurrence rates were, respectively: 18.3, 16.8, 10.7, 16.2, and 33.8%. Patients with MPs were more likely to suffer lethal recurrence when compared with high-stage sBOTs (odds ratio, OR 0.501; P = 0.003), whereas the trend in microinvasive sBOTs did not reach statistical significance. Regarding mBOTs, 61.6% presented with early-stage typical mBOTs, 19.6% presented with microinvasion, 34.8% presented with IECA, and six patients presented with non-invasive implants; none presented with invasive implants. The lethal recurrence rates were, respectively: 3.6, 0, 3.7, and 0%.

CONCLUSION

Micropapillary patterns (MPs) showed a higher risk for lethal recurrence when compared with high-stage sBOTs. Regarding mBOTs, IECA and microinvasion do not play a role in the lethal recurrence rate.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Micropapillary pattern confirmed as high-risk in BOT. IECA and microinvasion don't play a role in mucinous BOT.

A nationwide study of serous "borderline" ovarian tumors in Denmark 1978-2002: centralized pathology review and overall survival compared with the general population

OBJECTIVE

To describe the study population and estimate overall survival of women with a serous "borderline" ovarian tumor (SBT) in Denmark over 25 years relative to the general population.

METHODS

The Danish Pathology Data Bank and the Danish Cancer Registry were used to identify 1487 women diagnosed with SBTs from 1978 to 2002. The histologic slides were collected from Danish pathology departments and reviewed by expert pathologists and classified as SBT/atypical proliferative serous tumor (APST) or noninvasive low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC). Associated implants were classified as noninvasive or invasive. Medical records were collected from hospital departments and reviewed. Data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and relative survival was estimated with follow-up through September 2, 2013.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1042 women with a confirmed SBT diagnosis was identified. Women with stage I had an overall survival similar to the overall survival expected from the general population (p=0.3), whereas women with advanced stage disease had a poorer one (p<0.0001). This was evident both in women with noninvasive (p<0.0001) and invasive implants (p<0.0001). Only among women with advanced stage, overall survival of women with SBT/APST (p<0.0001) and noninvasive LGSC (p<0.0001) was poorer than expected from the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

To date this is the largest nationwide cohort of SBTs where all tumors have been verified by expert pathologists. Only in women with advanced stage SBT, overall survival is poorer than in the general population which applies both to women with noninvasive and invasive implants as well as to women with SBT/APST and noninvasive LGSC.