Molecular Genetic Evidence of an Independent Origin of Serous Low Malignant Potential Implants and Lymph Node Inclusions

Lymph Node Involvement in Recurrent Serous Borderline Ovarian Tumors: Current Evidence, Controversies, and a Review of the Literature

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) account for 10-20% of epithelial ovarian neoplasms. They are characterized by their lack of destructive stromal invasion. In comparison to invasive ovarian cancers, BOTs occur in younger patients and have better outcome. Serous borderline ovarian tumor (SBOT) represents the most common subtype of BOT. Complete surgical staging is the current standard management but fertility-sparing surgery is an option for SBOT patients who are at reproductive age. While most cases of SBOTs have an indolent course with favorable prognosis, late recurrence and malignant transformation can occur, usually in the form of low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC). Thus, assessment of the recurrence risk is essential for the management of those patients. SBOTs can be associated with lymph node involvement (LNI) in up to 30% of patients who undergo lymph node dissection at diagnosis, and whether LNI affects prognosis is controversial. The present review suggests that recurrent SBOTs with LNI have poorer oncological outcomes and highlights the biases due to the scarcity of reports in the literature. Preventing SBOTs from recurring and becoming invasive overtime and a more profound understanding of the underlying mechanisms at play are necessary.

The molecular pathology of ovarian serous borderline tumors

Molecular studies in ovarian serous borderline tumors (OSBTs) have been used to understand different aspects of this neoplasm. (i) Pathogenesis, Kras and Braf mutations represent very early events in the tumorigenesis of OSBT as both are detected in serous cystadenomas associated with OSBTs. In contrast, serous cystadenomas without OSBTs do not show Kras or Braf mutations. In OSBTs, Kras mutations range from 17% to 39.5%, while Braf mutations range from 23% to 48%. The former is comparable with the range of Kras mutations in ovarian low-grade serous carcinomas (OLGSCa), 19%-54.5%. In contrast, Braf mutations in OLGSCa range from 0% to 33%. Serous cystadenomas appear to progress to OSBT due to a Braf mutation, but this mutation is rarely involved in the progression to OLGSCa. OSBTs with Braf mutation are associated with cellular senescence and up-regulation of tumor suppressor genes. In contrast, OSBTs without a Braf mutation may progress to OLGSCa due to Kras mutation or some other genetic alterations. (ii) The relationship between OSBTs and the extraovarian disease, a monoclonal versus mutifocal origin? This is still matter of debate as studies using different techniques have failed to settle this controversy. (iii) Biological behavior, Braf mutations appear to have a protective role against the progression of OSBT to OLGSCa, while Kras mutations are commonly seen in cases of OSBT that recurred as LGSCa. Nevertheless, LGSCa as a recurrence of an OSBT can originate from OSBTs with or without detectable Kras mutations. Also, it appears to be an association between Kras G12v mutation and a more aggressive phenotype of OSBT that recurred as LGSCa. (iv) Actionable targets, currently there are limited data. It has been reported that cancer cell lines with Kras G12v mutation are more sensitive to selumetinib than cell lines with wild-type Kras.

TFF3 Expression as Stratification Marker in Borderline Epithelial Tumors of the Ovary

Borderline tumors (BOT) of the ovary account for 10% to 20% of ovarian neoplasms. Like ovarian cancer, BOT encompass several different histological subtypes (serous, mucinous, endometrioid, clear cell, transitional cell and mixed) with serous (SBOT) and mucinous (MBOT) the most common. Current hypotheses suggest low-grade serous carcinoma may develop in a stepwise fashion from SBOT whereas the majority of high grade serous carcinomas develop rapidly presumably from inclusion cysts or ovarian surface epithelium. The pathogenesis of mucinous ovarian tumors is still puzzling. Molecular markers could help to better define relationships between such entities. Trefoil factor-3 (TFF3) is an estrogen-regulated gene associated with prognosis in different types of cancer. It has also been included in a recent marker panel predicting subtypes of ovarian carcinoma. We analyzed the expression of TFF3 by immunohistochemistry in a cohort of 137 BOT and its association with histopathological features. Overall expression rate of TFF3 was 21.9%. None of the BOT with serous and endometrioid histology displayed strong TFF3 expression. On the other hand, TFF3 was highly expressed in 61.4% of MBOT cases and 33.3% of BOT with mixed histology (P < 0.001) suggesting a potential function of the protein in that subtypes. Associations of TFF3 expression with FIGO stage and micropapillary pattern were significant in the overall cohort but confounded by their correlation with histological subtypes. The highly specific expression of TFF3 in MBOT may help to further clarify potential relationships of tumors with mucinous histology and warrants further studies.

Monoclonal origin of peritoneal implants and lymph node deposits in serous borderline ovarian tumors (s-BOT) with high intratumoral homogeneity

Molecular studies have shown that the most prevalent mutations in serous ovarian borderline tumors (s-BOT) are BRAF and/or KRAS alterations. About one third of s-BOT represent peritoneal implants and/or lymph node involvement. These extraovarian deposits may be monoclonal or polyclonal in origin. To test both the hypotheses, mutational analyses using pyrosequencing for BRAF codon 600 and KRAS codon 12/13 and 61 of microdissected tissue was performed in 15 s-BOT and their invasive and noninvasive peritoneal implants. Two to 6 implants from different peritoneal sites were examined in 13 cases. Lymph node deposits were available for the analysis in 3 cases. Six s-BOT showed mutation in exon 2 codon 12 of the KRAS proto-oncogen. Five additional cases showed BRAF p.V600E mutation representing an overall mutation rate of 73.3%. Multiple (2-6) peritoneal implants were analyzed after microdissection in 13 of 15 cases. All showed identical mutational results when compared with the ovarian site of the disease. All lymph node deposits, including those with multiple deposits in different nodes, showed identical results, suggesting high intratumoral mutational homogeneity. The evidence presented in this study and the majority of data reported in the literature support the hypothesis that s-BOT with their peritoneal implants and lymph node deposits show identical mutational status of BRAF and KRAS suggesting a monoclonal rather than a polyclonal disease regarding these both tested genetic loci. In addition, a high intratumoral genetic homogeneity can be suggested. In conclusion, the results of the present study support the monoclonal origin of s-BOT and their peritoneal implants and lymph node deposits.

Mutational analysis of BRAF and KRAS in ovarian serous borderline (atypical proliferative) tumours and associated peritoneal implants

There is debate as to whether peritoneal implants associated with serous borderline tumours/atypical proliferative serous tumours (SBT/APSTs) of the ovary are derived from the primary ovarian tumour or arise independently in the peritoneum. We analysed 57 SBT/APSTs from 45 patients with advanced-stage disease identified from a nation-wide tumour registry in Denmark. Mutational analysis for hotspots in KRAS and BRAF was successful in 55 APSTs and demonstrated KRAS mutations in 34 (61.8%) and BRAF mutations in eight (14.5%). Mutational analysis was successful in 56 peritoneal implants and revealed KRAS mutations in 34 (60.7%) and BRAF mutations in seven (12.5%). Mutational analysis could not be performed in two primary tumours and in nine implants, either because DNA amplification failed or because there was insufficient tissue for mutational analysis. For these specimens we performed VE1 immunohistochemistry, which was shown to be a specific and sensitive surrogate marker for a V600E BRAF mutation. VE1 staining was positive in one of two APSTs and seven of nine implants. Thus, among 63 implants for which mutation status was known (either by direct mutational analysis or by VE1 immunohistochemistry), 34 (53.9%) had KRAS mutations and 14 (22%) had BRAF mutations, of which identical KRAS mutations were found in 34 (91%) of 37 SBT/APST-implant pairs and identical BRAF mutations in 14 (100%) of 14 SBT/APST-implant pairs. Wild-type KRAS and BRAF (at the loci investigated) were found in 11 (100%) of 11 SBT/APST-implant pairs. Overall concordance of KRAS and BRAF mutations was 95% in 59 of 62 SBT/APST-implant (non-invasive and invasive) pairs (p < 0.00001). This study provides cogent evidence that the vast majority of peritoneal implants, non-invasive and invasive, harbour the identical KRAS or BRAF mutations that are present in the associated SBT/APST, supporting the view that peritoneal implants are derived from the primary ovarian tumour.

KRAS, BRAF genotyping reveals genetic heterogeneity of ovarian borderline tumors and associated implants

Background

Patients diagnosed for a serous ovarian borderline tumor (s-BOT) typically present with an excellent clinical outcome. However there have been controversies concerning the prognostic impact of so-called implants, an extra ovarian spread occurring alongside the s-BOT in certain cases. It remains obscure whether these implants actually resemble metastasis owning the same genetic pattern as the ovarian primary or whether they develop independently.

Methods

The current study, in the aim of further clarifying the genetic origin of implants, assessed BRAF/KRAS hot spot mutations and the p53/p16^INK4a immunophenotype of s-BOTs and corresponding implants (n = 49) of 15 patients by pyro-sequencing and immunostaining, respectively.

Results

A significant proportion of both s-BOTs and implants showed KRAS or BRAF mutation and though p16^INK4a was found to be abundantly expressed, p53 immunoreactivity was rather low. When genotypes of BRAF/KRAS mutated s-BOTs and corresponding implants were compared no patient presented with a fully matching mutation profile of s-BOTs and all corresponding implants.

Conclusions

The current study reveals genetic heterogeneity of s-BOTs and implants, as none of the markers examined showed constant reciprocity. Hence, our findings may assist to explain the different clinical presentation of s-BOTs and implants and might encourage to applying more individualized follow up protocols.

Primary ovarian borderline tumor in the inguinal lymph node

We report the case of a primary serous ovarian borderline tumour developed in an inguinal lymph node. No primary ovarian borderline tumour was observed within the ovaries after bilateral ovariectomy and complete pathological examination. We considered the diagnosis of ectopic ovarian tissue because the tumour was completely surrounded by normal ovarian tissue with positive FOXL2 staining. The whole ovarian tissue was itself entirely surrounded by lymphatic tissue. Two other hypotheses should be considered: primary retroperitoneal borderline tumour or retroperitoneal nodal involvement by an ovarian serous borderline tumour. Ectopic ovarian tissue can be observed in lymph node. We don't believe ectopic location of ovarian tissue increase the risk of neoplastic change.

Ovarian serous cystadenofibromas associated with a low-grade serous carcinoma of the peritoneum

Ovarian serous cystadenofibromas are benign neoplasms that sometimes have focal areas of borderline serous tumor and rarely have been associated with epithelial proliferations in the peritoneum, resembling implants. We are reporting 2 cases of ovarian serous cystadenofibromas with serous peritoneal lesions of higher grade than the ovarian tumor: 1 case had a serous carcinoma and another 1 a serous borderline tumor.

Prognostic value of lymph node involvement in ovarian serous borderline tumors

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate the prognosis value of lymph node involvement (LN positive) lymph node involvement for borderline ovarian tumor (BOT).

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective study on 49 patients treated at our institution for advanced-stage serous BOT (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] III or IV). Pathological characteristics and survival were compared according to the lymph node status. The same analysis was performed on 1503 patients of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

RESULTS

In our institution, 14 patients were LN positive. Eight patients have been upstaged after lymph node dissection. No patient has died during follow-up (median 53 months). LN positivity was not associated with recurrence. In the SEER registry, 93 patients (6.2%) had LN positivity. These patients were younger and with more advanced local extension. Survival curves were similar after adjustment for FIGO stage.

CONCLUSION

Lymph node involvement does not appear as a prognosis factor for advanced-stage BOT.

Recent Developments on the Significance and Pathogenesis of Lymph Node Involvement in Ovarian Serous Tumors of Low Malignant Potential (Borderline Tumors)

In approximately 27% of patients that were surgically staged for ovarian serous borderline tumors (ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential), regional lymph nodes, most commonly the pelvic and paraaortic groups, display morphologically similar epithelial clusters. Lymph nodes above the diaphragm may also be involved. Lymph node involvement does not adversely impact the overall survival of patients with ovarian serous borderline tumors, but there is controversy as to whether this finding is associated with a decrease in recurrence-free survival. Nodular aggregates of epithelium greater than 1 mm in maximum dimension, as compared with all other patterns of nodal involvement, have been associated with reduced recurrence-free survival. The lymph nodes may also be the site of recurrence and/or progression to carcinoma of an ovarian serous borderline tumor. Recent molecular and morphologic data suggest that although most nodal implants are indeed metastatic from their synchronous ovarian neoplasms, a small subset arise de novo from nodal endosalpingiosis. The precise mechanistic basis for how these noninvasive neoplasms achieve nodal metastases is unclear. However, because most patients with nodal metastases also have peritoneal implants, tumors that are ovary-confined and without ovarian surface involvement are rarely associated with nodal involvement, microinvasive borderline tumors frequently display lymphatic vessel involvement yet show a remarkably low frequency of nodal involvement, in conjunction with the recent finding that node-positive and node-negative tumors display no significant differences in lymphatic vessel density, suggest that the route of spread to lymph nodes in most cases is via the peritoneal and not tumoral lymphatics.

A comparative analysis of lymphatic vessel density in ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential (borderline tumors) with and without lymph node involvement

Lymph node involvement is seen in approximately one quarter of women with surgically staged ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential (serous borderline tumors), and this finding apparently does not adversely impact their overall survival. To help illuminate some of the pathomechanisms underlying this novel phenomenon, in which a largely noninvasive epithelial neoplasm is able to exit its primary site and be transported to lymph nodes with such a substantial frequency, we investigated whether significant differences in lymphatic vessel density exist between ovarian serous borderline tumors that show lymph node involvement and those that do not. The lymphatic vessel density of 13 conventional ovarian serous borderline tumors (i.e. tumors without stromal microinvasion, micropapillary/cribriform areas, or invasive implants) with at least 1 positive lymph node (study group) was compared with the lymphatic vessel density of an age- and disease extent-matched control group of 13 similarly selected lymph node-negative ovarian serous borderline tumors. Lymphatic vessel density was determined by counting the total number of vascular spaces immunohistochemically stained by the lymphatic endothelium marker D2-40 in 5 consecutive microscopic fields (x20 objective, field area of 1 microscopic field, 0.95 mm) in the most vessel-dense areas and calculating the average value per microscopic field. The peritumoral lymphatic vessel density was significantly higher than the intratumoral lymphatic vessel density in both groups. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the study and control groups regarding intratumoral lymphatic vessel density (8.0 vs. 7.61; P=0.77), peritumoral lymphatic vessel density (20.33 vs. 21.0; P=0.79), or combined, that is, peritumoral plus intratumoral lymphatic vessel density (27.81 vs. 28.62; P=0.83). Our findings, in conjunction with others in the medical literature, do not support a role for tumor lymphatics in nodal metastasis in this neoplasm. We discuss the possibility that nodal deposits may represent metastatic disease from secondary tumor implants.