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

Ovarian tumor frozen section, a multidisciplinary affair

BACKGROUND

Ovarian Cancer (OC) constitute the eighth most common cancers among women worldwide. Surgery remains the cornerstone in the management of OC. Intraoperative frozen section (FS) diagnosis is widely used to decide the surgery course. We aimed to assess the reliability of intraoperative FS diagnosis for treatment planning of patients with suspected OC from a multidisciplinary perspective. The clinical consequences of reclassification and the multidisciplinary management of the therapy plan, is the secondary aim of this study. To our knowledge, this information is sparely investigated.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective population-based study of patients who underwent surgery for suspected OC between 2018 and 2020. Histopathological outcomes were classified as benign, borderline, or malignant. The FS diagnosis was the diagnostic test, and the final histopathology report was the gold standard. Diagnostic capability for treatment planning was assessed, and modifications made possible by overall clinical knowledge were discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 358 patients were identified, of whom 187 were included in the FS group. Overall accuracy was 89.8%, and 19 patients were reclassified; the malignancy grade of 15 tumors was underestimated. Prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for invasive malignancies on FS were 54.0% (CI 46.6-61.3%), 88.1% (CI 80.2-93.7%), 98.8% (CI 93.7-99.9%), 98.9% (CI 92.7-99.8%), and 87.6% (CI 80.6-92.4%), respectively. Tumors incorrectly graded by FS tended to be of borderline-related.

CONCLUSIONS

The reliability of the FS methodology was an accurate test to help perform appropriate surgery and plan swift oncological treatment. FS is a reliable method to diagnose invasive malignancies and benign pathology. The communication between the pathologist, surgeon, and medical oncologist is highly important for both intraoperative decision-making and postoperative patient care.

TERT promoter methylation and protein expression as predictive biomarkers for recurrence risk in patients with serous borderline ovarian tumours

Epithelial ovarian neoplasms can be divided into three distinct clinicopathological groups: benign, malignant and borderline tumours. Borderline tumours are less aggressive than epithelial carcinomas, with an indolent clinical course and delayed recurrence. However, a subset of these cases can progress to malignancy and relapse, and death from recurrent disease can occasionally occur. Telomerase activation is a critical element in cellular immortalisation and cancer. The enzyme telomerase comprises a catalytic subunit (TERT) expressed in various types of cancers and regulated by promoter methylation mainly in epithelial tumours. The aim of this study was to investigate the promoter methylation status and the expression of TERT in 50 serous borderline tumours (SBTs) and their correlation with clinicopathological features and outcome. TERT methylation was analysed by bisulfite pyrosequencing and TERT expression by immunohistochemistry. Methylation of TERT promoter was only observed in four SBTs. A good correlation with immunostochemistry was found: nuclear positivity for TERT expression was observed in the methylated cases, whereas no expression was detected in unmethylated tumours. One of these patients had a recurrence after 7 years and another patient died from the disease. SBTs with hypomethylated tumours and absence of TERT expression showed a good clinical behaviour. Our study highlights the low presence of TERT methylation in SBTs, confirming that these tumours have a different biology than serous carcinomas. Furthermore, the concordance between TERT promoter methylation and TERT expression and their association with clinical outcomes leads to consider TERT alteration as a potential predictive biomarker for recurrence risk identifying patients who should undergo a careful and prolonged follow-up.

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

Histopathology plays an important role in defining response to treatment for different tumor types. Histopathologic response criteria are currently used as reference standard in various types of cancer, including breast cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and bone tumors. Since there were no generally accepted response criteria established for ovarian cancer, a systematic analysis of various features of tumor regression was performed. Patient survival served as the reference standard to validate the histopathologic features of tumor regression. In contrast to ovarian cancer, borderline ovarian tumors are epithelial ovarian neoplasms characterized by up-regulated cellular proliferation and cytologic atypia but without destructive stromal invasion. While borderline ovarian tumors generally have an excellent prognosis with a 5‑year survival of > 95%, recurrences and malignant transformation occur in a small percentage of patients. Nevertheless, the identification of patients at increased risk for recurrence remains difficult. The aim of studying histopathological markers in ovarian cancers and borderline tumors was to evaluate whether histopathologic features including molecular pathologic alterations can predict patient outcome, particularly the risk of recurrence of serous and mucinous borderline tumors.

RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF BORDERLINE OVARIAN TUMORS: OUTCOMES AT A SINGLE CENTER

We wanted to discuss our experiences in the approach to borderline ovarian tumors, which constitute a group different from epithelial ovarian tumors with respect to their biological structure in line with retrospective information gathered from our cases. A total of 25 patients operated on for the indication of adnexal masses diagnosed as borderline ovarian tumors based on frozen section results were included in our study. Patient age, tumor diameter, tumor markers and surgeries performed were discussed in the light of the literature. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software. The patient mean age was 43.84±11.34 years. The mass was localized in the right (n=13), left (n=11) or both (n=1) adnexal regions. The mean tumor diameter was 12.9±5.84 cm. Histopathologic examination established the diagnosis of serous borderline (n=14 patients) and mucinous borderline (n=11) ovarian tumors. Although the results of our study are consistent with current literature data, a greater number of current studies should be performed on borderline ovarian tumors, which are defined as a class of tumors different from epithelial ovarian tumors.

Assessing the landscape of ovarian serous borderline tumors

Aim

To compare distinct clinicopathological features between atypical proliferative serous tumors and non-invasive low-grade ovarian serous carcinomas.

Methods

Our study group comprised 203 cases of serous borderline tumors sub-classified as atypical proliferative serous tumors or as non-invasive low-grade serous carcinomas. All pathological features related to borderline tumors were re-evaluated by two gynecological pathologists. Data concerning recurrences and survival were retrieved from the medical records of the patients.

Results

When comparing atypical proliferative serous tumors to non-invasive low-grade serous carcinomas, the latter were statistically related to advanced stage at diagnosis, bilateral disease, exophytic pattern of growth, microinvasive carcinoma, and the presence of invasive implants. In univariate analysis, recurrences were statistically related to the exophytic pattern of growth, to microinvasion, and to the presence of implants (both invasive and non-invasive). Nevertheless, in multivariate analysis, only microinvasion and the presence of invasive implants were related to recurrence. Women who eventually succumbed to the disease were only those with invasive implants. Their ovarian tumor was either a non-invasive low-grade serous carcinoma or an atypical proliferative serous tumor with ‘minimal’ micropapillary pattern. Neither lymph node involvement nor endosalpingiosis seemed to influence the course of the disease.

Conclusions

The results of our study underline the increased possibility of non-invasive low-grade serous carcinomas to be related with features indicative of aggressive behavior as opposed to atypical proliferative serous tumors. Nevertheless, irrespective of tumor histology, the presence of invasive implants and microinvasion were the only independent prognostications of recurrence.

Pitfalls of Frozen Section in Gynecological Pathology: A Case of Ovarian Serous Surface Papillary Adenofibroma Imitating Malignancy

Serous cystadenofibromas are uncommon benign ovarian lesions, consisting of both fibrous and epithelial components, that are usually cystic but may contain solid or papillary architecture that can be confused with a malignancy on imaging. Papillary architecture seen on frozen section may also falsely steer the pathologist in the direction of a diagnosis of a borderline serous tumor. Overcalling the lesion may lead to more aggressive surgery than necessary, so extensive tissue sampling and consideration of this entity is important in possibly avoiding this mistake.

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

Objective

To explore the optimal treatment options for women with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs).

Materials and Methods

The medical records of consecutive patients with BOTs in two academic institutions were retrospectively collected. The pertinent data, including clinicopathological characteristics and, treatment and prognostic information were evaluated.

Results

A total of 281 cases of BOTs were included in this analysis. For the entire series, the 5- year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 91.8% and 98.5%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, reservation of the ipsilateral ovary (HR: 0.104 [95% CI, 0.036–0.304], p = 0.000) and FIGO stage II–III (HR: 6.811 [95% CI, 2.700–17.181], p = 0.000) were the independent risk factors for recurrence. Ovarian surface involvement (HR: 64.996 [95% CI, 4.054–1041.941], p = 0.003) was the only independent prognostic factor for OS. Lymphadenectomy and adjunct chemotherapy had no significant impact on patients’ recurrence and survival (recurrence: p = 0.332 and 0.290, respectively, survival: p = 0.896 and 0.216, respectively).

Conclusions

Fertility-sparing surgery with healthy ovarian preservation seems safe and feasible for young women who prefer fertility-sparing treatment. Ovarian cystectomy to conserve the affected ovary/ovaries without ovarian surface involvement may be cautiously performed under fully informed consent for young women with bilateral BOTs who strongly prefer fertility-sparing treatment and have no evidence of infertility. However, long-term follow-up is necessary due to the relapse susceptibility of the ovary.

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

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) represent an independent group among ovarian malignancies, being diagnosed at clinical stage earlier than invasive ovarian carcinomas (OCs) and characterized by a rather favorable outcome after careful surgical management. Data published worldwide showed a substantial discordance of p53 expression in BOTs. The purpose of this work was to present the current status of knowledge on the significance of TP53 gene and p53 protein product alterations in BOTs. In general, higher p53 expression patterns were reported for ovarian malignancies compared to BOTs. Serous, mucinous, and endometrioid BOTs differ substantially in relation to p53 immunostaining, but data concerning the relationship between the protein's immunoreactivity and other clinico-pathological variables are scarce. Finally, reports published to date support the view that TP53 alterations may not be commonly associated with the borderline phenotype of ovarian tumors but they probably occur during the development of invasive OCs. In light of these uncertainties, the impact of TP53 alterations and p53 expression on overall survival in women affected by BOTs requires further multi-institutional studies in large cohorts of patients.

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

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOT) are uncommon but not rare epithelial ovarian neoplasms, intermediate between benign and malignant categories. Since BOT were first identified >40 years ago, they have inspired controversies disproportionate to their incidence. This review discusses diagnostic criteria for the histologic subtypes of BOT, highlighting areas of diagnostic challenges, ongoing controversies, and changes in terminology implemented by the recent 2014 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Female Genital Organs. Emerging knowledge supports the notion that subtypes of borderline ovarian tumors comprise distinct biologic, pathogenetic, and molecular entities, precluding a single unifying concept for BOT. Serous borderline tumors (SBT) share molecular and genetic alterations with low-grade serous carcinomas and can present at higher stages with peritoneal implants and/or lymph node involvement, which validates their borderline malignant potential. All other (non-serous) subtypes of BOT commonly present at stage I confined to the ovary(ies) and are associated with overall survival approaching that of the general population. An important change in the WHO 2014 classification is the new terminology of non-invasive implants associated with SBT, as any invasive foci (previously called “invasive implants”) are now in line with their biological behavior considered peritoneal low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC). The controversy regarding the terminology of non-serous borderline tumors, called by some pathologists “atypical proliferative tumor” in view of their largely benign behavior, has not been resolved. The concepts of intraepithelial carcinoma and microinvasion may evolve in further studies, as their presence appears to have no prognostic impact and is subject to considerable inter-observer variability.

Pathology of borderline and invasive cancers

Epithelial ovarian tumors are heterogeneous neoplasms primarily classified according to cell type. They are further subdivided into benign, borderline, and malignant (carcinomas), and this subdivision is very important as it correlates with behavior. Borderline ovarian tumors show epithelial proliferation higher than that seen in their benign counterparts and variable nuclear atypia; however, in contrast to carcinomas, there is no destructive stromal invasion, and their prognosis is much better. Ovarian carcinomas are the most common ovarian cancers and the most lethal gynecological malignancies. On the basis of histopathology and molecular genetics, they are divided into five types (high-grade serous (70%), endometrioid (10%), clear cell (10%), mucinous (3%), and low-grade serous carcinomas (<5%)), which are morphologically diverse and account for over 95% of cases. These tumors are essentially distinct diseases, as indicated by differences in epidemiological and genetic risk factors, precursor lesions, patterns of spread, molecular alterations, response to chemotherapy, and prognosis. For a successful specific treatment, reproducible histopathological diagnosis of the tumor cell type is critical.

Fertility Preservation Is Safe for Serous Borderline Ovarian Tumors

Objectives

This study aimed to determine the overall survival (OS) and progression-free interval and the influence of fertility-preserving surgery (FPS) versus radical surgery (RS) in patients with serous borderline ovarian tumor (BOT).

Methods

Clinical parameters of patients with serous BOT treated between 1993 and 2013 in one institution were retrospectively investigated. All tumors were examined by one pathologist with experience in gynecological pathology.

Results

One hundred thirty-two patients with serous BOT (inclusive 16 microinvasive) were analyzed (45% were ≤40 years), with a median follow-up of 6 years. Thirty-two percent (42/132) of the patients received FPS; 14% (18/132) relapsed (invasive or borderline). The 5-year progression-free survival was 89%. The risk of recurrence was higher in patients 40 years or younger (P = 0.019), after FPS (P = 0.002), in patients with a higher International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (P = 0.016), for bilateral BOT (P = 0.0132), and for the micropapillary variant (P = 0.067). The OS at 5 years was 97%. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between FPS and RS [all (6 of 90) patients, except for 1, with RS died]. One patient died of relapsed BOT. Among the recurrences, low-grade invasive carcinoma was diagnosed in 4 patients. Three of these 4 patients were originally operated radically, 2 had a micropapillary variant FIGO stage III, and 1 had a papillary pattern FIGO stage II with microinvasion; all 3 had noninvasive implants and are alive. One patient with a micropapillary variant, FIGO stage IIIC with microinvasion and invasive implants, received FPS and died of disease.

Conclusions

The risk of recurrence is higher after FPS compared with RS; however, no influence on OS was observed. This was because most of the patients relapsed as BOT. Fertility preservation is justified in young patients with serous borderline tumors.

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.

[Unilateral borderline ovarian tumor and unilateral adenexectomy?]

To perform an adnexectomy in case of unilateral borderline tumor must consider the risk of recurrence, the preservation of fertility, and to integrate a global comprehensive management of a couple. Adnexectomy can be considering as a legitimate option when the woman desire a pregnancy. The risk of recurrence is low and the global survey high. Identification of woman with a high risk of recurrence is necessary. Adnexectomy can be considering as a legitimate option to preserve fertility in case of unilateral tumor. However, ovarian reserve data are missing after the surgery. Adnexectomy can be considering for the management of infertile woman with unilateral borderline tumor. IVF can be performed in the absence of any poor prognosis factor. Management with ovarian cryopreservation and In vitro Maturation remain unclear.

Retrospective evaluation of borderline ovarian tumors: single center experience of 183 cases

PURPOSE

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) constitute about a quarter of epithelial ovarian malignancies and require different treatment approaches. The present study aims to document the experience of a single center on the treatment outcome of women who had conservative or comprehensive surgery for BOTs.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-three patients with BOTs, diagnosed and/or treated in our center between January of 2000 and March of 2013, were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean age at diagnosis was 40.6 years old (range 17-78). Ninety-five patients (51 %) were ≤40 years. Comprehensive surgical staging and fertility sparing surgery were performed in 49 % (n = 91) and 48 % of patients (n = 89) respectively. A hundred and forty-seven patients had stage IA disease (80 %). The most common type of BOT was serous in histology with 18 % bilateralism. CA-125 and CA-199 levels were increased in 29 (19 %) and 15 (10 %) patients with stage IA disease. Non-invasive tumor implants were diagnosed in 9 patients (4 %) and uterine involvement was 2 % among BOT patients that underwent hysterectomies. The mean post-operative follow-up period was 20.4 months (range 6-78 months). Disease recurrence was seen in 5 patients indicating overall recurrence rate of 2.7 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, we evaluated a large data pool of 183 patients diagnosed with borderline epithelial ovarian tumors. BOTs have a relatively better prognosis than invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Surgery with proper staging is the cornerstone of treatment. Patients with BOTs at the early stage can undergo fertility sparing surgery with close follow-up.

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

Background

Borderline tumors of the ovary (BOT) are a distinct entity of ovarian tumors, characterized by lack of stromal invasion. Recent studies postulated that the presence of invasive implants, incomplete staging, fertility sparing surgery and residual tumor after surgery are major prognostic factors for BOT. There are no biomarkers that can predict BOT or the presence of invasive implants.

Objective

The aim of our study was to assess the value of CA125 and HE4 alone, or within ROMA score for detecting BOT, and for predicting the presence of invasive implants.

Methods

Retrospective, monocentric study on 167 women diagnosed with BOT or benign ovarian masses. Serum HE4, CA125 levels and ROMA were assessed preoperatively. Due to low number of BOT with invasive implants, we performed an unmatched analysis (consecutive patients) and a matched analysis (according to age and histology) to compare BOT with invasive implants, BOT without invasive implants and benign disease.

Results

There were no significant differences in the HE4 and CA125 expressions in the three groups of patients (p = 0.984 and p = 0.141, respectively). The ROC analysis showed that CA125 alone is superior to ROMA and HE4 in discriminating patients with BOT with invasive implants from patients with benign diseases and BOT without invasive implants. A newly established score, ROMABOT, did not perform better than ROMA. The analysis of the matched groups revealed similar results as the analysis of all samples.

Conclusions

Both HE4 and CA125 are not reliable biomarkers for the diagnosis of BOT or for predicting the presence of invasive implants.