1
|
How JA, Legarreta AF, Handley KF, Fellman B, Foster KI, Glassman D, Vuttaradhi VK, Brodsky AL, Lawson B, Frumovitz M, Westin SN, Ramondetta LM, Gershenson DM, Sood AK, Hillman RT. Serial cytoreductive surgery and survival outcomes in recurrent adult-type ovarian granulosa cell tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024; 230:544.e1-544.e13. [PMID: 38191019 PMCID: PMC11152250 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.01.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2023] [Revised: 12/20/2023] [Accepted: 01/02/2024] [Indexed: 01/10/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Few studies have evaluated the role of cytoreductive surgery in patients with recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary. Despite a multitude of treatment modalities in the recurrent setting, the optimal management strategy is not known. Cytoreductive surgery offers an attractive option for disease confined to the abdomen/pelvis. However, few studies have evaluated the role of surgery compared with systemic therapy alone following the first recurrence and subsequent disease progressions. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine the impact of secondary, tertiary, and quaternary cytoreductive surgery on survival outcomes in recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary. STUDY DESIGN This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study evaluating patients with recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary enrolled in the MD Anderson Rare Gynecologic Malignancy Registry from 1970 to 2022. Study inclusion criteria consisted of histology-proven recurrent disease, at least 1 documented recurrence, and treatment/treatment planning at the MD Anderson Cancer Center or Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital. The primary exposure was cytoreductive surgery, and the outcomes of interest were progression-free survival and overall survival. Survival analyses were restricted to eligible patients with resectable disease without medical barriers to surgery at each progression episode. Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Progression-free survival (after first, second, and third progression) and overall survival were estimated with methods of Kaplan and Meier, and were modeled via Cox proportional hazards regression. Multivariable analyses were performed for progression-free survival after first progression and overall survival. RESULTS Among the 369 patients with adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary in the registry, 149 patients met the study inclusion criteria. Secondary cytoreductive surgery was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival on univariable (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.81, P=.01) and multivariable analyses (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.92; P=.03). Those who underwent secondary cytoreductive surgery had a significantly improved median overall survival compared with those who did not undergo cytoreductive surgery (181.92 vs 61.56 months, respectively; P=.002). Overall survival benefit remained statistically significant on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.67; P=.004). Tertiary cytoreductive surgery was similarly associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.70; P=.001). Despite a similar trend, quaternary cytoreductive surgery was not associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.26; P=.27). CONCLUSION Among those with resectable disease and no medical contraindications to surgery, cytoreductive surgery may have a beneficial impact on progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey A How
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Alejandra Flores Legarreta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Katelyn F Handley
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Bryan Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Katherine I Foster
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Deanna Glassman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Veena K Vuttaradhi
- Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Allison L Brodsky
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Barrett Lawson
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Michael Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Shannon N Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Lois M Ramondetta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - David M Gershenson
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Anil K Sood
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - R Tyler Hillman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Trecourt A, Donzel M, Alsadoun N, Allias F, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M. Relevance of Molecular Pathology for the Diagnosis of Sex Cord-Stromal Tumors of the Ovary: A Narrative Review. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5864. [PMID: 38136408 PMCID: PMC10741682 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15245864] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 12/13/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Ovarian sex cord-stromal tumors (SCSTs) account for 8% of all primary ovarian neo-plasms. Accurate diagnosis is crucial since each subtype has a specific prognostic and treatment. Apart from fibrosarcomas, stromal tumors are benign while sex cord tumors may recur, sometimes with a significant time to relapse. Although the diagnosis based on morphology is straightforward, in some cases the distinction between stromal tumors and sex cord tumors may be tricky. Indeed, the immunophenotype is usually nonspecific between stromal tumors and sex cord tumors. Therefore, molecular pathology plays an important role in the diagnosis of such entities, with pathognomonic or recurrent alterations, such as FOXL2 variants in adult granulosa cell tumors. In addition, these neoplasms may be associated with genetic syndromes, such as Peutz-Jeghers syndrome for sex cord tumors with annular tubules, and DICER1 syndrome for Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors (SLCTs), for which the pathologist may be in the front line of syndromic suspicion. Molecular pathology of SCST is also relevant for patient prognosis and management. For instance, the DICER1 variant is associated with moderately to poorly differentiated SLCTS and a poorer prognosis. The present review summarizes the histomolecular criteria useful for the diagnosis of SCST, using recent molecular data from the literature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexis Trecourt
- Service de Pathologie Multi-Site—Site Sud, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69310 Lyon, France; (A.T.); (M.D.); (N.A.); (F.A.)
- UR 3738, Centre pour l’Innovation en Cancérologie de Lyon (CICLY), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69921 Lyon, France
| | - Marie Donzel
- Service de Pathologie Multi-Site—Site Sud, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69310 Lyon, France; (A.T.); (M.D.); (N.A.); (F.A.)
| | - Nadjla Alsadoun
- Service de Pathologie Multi-Site—Site Sud, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69310 Lyon, France; (A.T.); (M.D.); (N.A.); (F.A.)
| | - Fabienne Allias
- Service de Pathologie Multi-Site—Site Sud, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69310 Lyon, France; (A.T.); (M.D.); (N.A.); (F.A.)
| | - Mojgan Devouassoux-Shisheboran
- Service de Pathologie Multi-Site—Site Sud, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69310 Lyon, France; (A.T.); (M.D.); (N.A.); (F.A.)
- UR 3738, Centre pour l’Innovation en Cancérologie de Lyon (CICLY), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69921 Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|