Typical Serous Borderline Tumors Research Articles

Are CT and MRI useful tools to distinguish between micropapillary type and typical type of ovarian serous borderline tumors?

To investigate the computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics of ovarian serous borderline tumors (SBTs), and evaluate whether CT and MRI can be used to distinguish micropapillary from typical subtypes. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical features and CT and MR imaging findings of 47 patients with SBTs encountered at our institute from September 2013 to December 2019. 30 patients with 58 histologically proven typical SBT and 17 patients with 26 micropapillary SBT were reviewed. Preoperative CT and MR images were evaluated, by two observers in consensus for the laterality, maximum diameter (MD), morphology patterns, internal architecture, attenuation or signal intensity, ADC value, enhancement patterns of solid portions (SP), and extra-ovarian imaging features. The median age were similar between typical SBT and SBT-MP (32.5years, 36years, respectively, P>0.05). Morphology patterns between two subtypes were significantly different on CT and MR images (P < 0.001). Irregular solid tumor (21/37, 56.76%) was the major morphology pattern of typical SBT tumor, while unilocular cyst with mural nodules (14/20, 70%) was the major morphology pattern of SBT-MP on CT images. Similarly, papillary architecture with internal branching (PA&IB) (17/21, 80.95%) was the major morphology pattern of typical SBT tumor, while unilocular cyst with mural nodules (4/6, 66.67%) was the major pattern of SBT-MP on MR images. PA&IB all showed slightly hyperintense papillary architecture with hypointense internal branching on T2-weighted MRI. More calcifications were found in typical SBT (24/37, 64.86%) than SBT-MP mass lesion (6/20, 30%) (P < 0.05). Hemorrhage was less frequently visible in (20/37, 54.05%) typical SBT lessons than SBT-MP mass lesion (18/20, 90%) (P < 0.05). The ovarian preservation is more seen in typical SBT (38/58, 65.52%) than SBT-MP (12/28, 42.86%) in our series (P < 0.05). Mean ADC value of solid portions (papillary architecture and mural nodules) was 1.68 (range from 1.44 to 1.85) × 10-3mm2/s for typical SBT and 1.62 (range from 1.45 to 1.7) × 10-3mm2/s for that of SBT-MP. The solid components of the two SBT subtypes showed wash-in appearance enhancements after contrast injection both in CT and MR images except 2 of SBT-MP with no enhancement as complete focal hemorrhage on MR images. Morphology and internal architecture are two major imaging features that can help to distinguish between SBT-MP and typical SBT.

Long-term Behavior of Serous Borderline Tumors Subdivided Into Atypical Proliferative Tumors and Noninvasive Low-grade Carcinomas: A Population-based Clinicopathologic Study of 942 Cases.

Ovarian serous borderline tumors (SBTs) have been the subject of considerable controversy, particularly with regard to terminology and behavior. It has been proposed that they constitute a heterogenous group of tumors composed, for the most part, of typical SBTs that are benign and designated "atypical proliferative serous tumor (APST)" and a small subset of SBTs with micropapillary architecture that have a poor outcome and are designated "noninvasive low-grade serous carcinoma (niLGSC)". It also has been argued that the difference in behavior between the 2 groups is not due to the subtype of the primary tumor but rather the presence of extraovarian disease, specifically invasive implants. According to the terminology of the 2014 WHO Classification, typical SBTs are equivalent to APSTs and SBTs displaying micropapillary architecture are synonymous with niLGSC. In addition, "invasive implants" were renamed "low-grade serous carcinoma" (LGSC). The argument as to whether it is the appearance of the primary tumor or the presence of extraovarian LGSC that determines outcome remains unsettled. The current study was initiated in 2004 and was designed to determine what factors were predictive of outcome, with special attention to the appearance of the primary tumor (APST vs. niLGSC) and that of the extraovarian disease (noninvasive vs. invasive implants). Our study is population based, involving the entire female population of Denmark. None of the women in the study were lost to follow-up, which ranged up to 36 years (median, 15 y). All the microscopic slides from the contributing hospitals were rereviewed by a panel of 2 pathologists (R.V. and R.J.K.) who were blinded to the follow-up. After excluding those that were not SBTs by the pathology panel, as well as cases with a prior or concurrent cancer or undefined stage, 942 women remained, of which 867 were APSTs and 75 were niLGSCs. The median patient age was 50 years (range, 16 to 97 y). Eight hundred nine women (86%) presented with FIGO stage I disease, whereas 133 (14%) had advanced stage disease. Compared with APSTs, niLGSC exhibited a significantly greater frequency of bilaterality, residual gross disease after surgery, microinvasion/microinvasive carcinoma, advanced stage disease, and invasive implants at presentation (P-values <0.003). Because the cause of death is difficult to accurately ascertain from death certificates, we used development of invasive serous carcinoma as the primary endpoint as following development of carcinoma, the mortality is very high. In the entire cohort, subsequent development of carcinoma occurred in 4%, of which 93% were low grade and 7% high grade (median time, 10 y; range, up to 25 y). After adjusting for age at and time since diagnosis of APST or niLGSC, occurrence of subsequent carcinoma was significantly higher with niLGSC than APST among all stages combined (hazard ratio [HR]=3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-8.2). This difference was still significant for stage I but not advanced stage cases. Moreover, all-cause mortality was not statistically significantly different between APST and niLGSC. Of all women with advanced stage disease, 114 (86%) had noninvasive implants, whereas 19 (14%) were invasive. Noninvasive implants were significantly associated with subsequent development of carcinoma (HR=7.7; 95% CI, 3.9-15.0), but the risk with invasive implants was significantly higher (HR=42.3; 95% CI, 16.1-111.1). In conclusion, although invasive implants are the most important feature in predicting an adverse outcome, subclassification into APST and niLGSC is important as it stratifies women with respect to risk for advanced stage disease and invasive implants for all women and development of serous carcinoma for stage I cases.

Epithelial borderline ovarian tumor: Diagnosis and treatment strategy.

Epithelial borderline ovarian tumors (BOT) are distinctive from benign tumors and carcinoma. They occur in younger women more often than carcinoma, and there is some difficulty making correct diagnosis of BOT. Two subtypes of BOT, serous and mucinous borderline tumor have different characteristics and very different clinical behavior. Serous borderline tumor (SBT) with micropapillary pattern shows more incidence of extra ovarian disease and often coexists with invasive implant. SBT with micropapillary pattern in advanced stage has showed a worse prognosis than typical SBT. Huge mucinous borderline tumors have histologic heterogeneity, and the accuracy of frozen section diagnosis is relatively low. Extensive sampling is required to reach a correct pathological diagnosis. Mucinous adenoma (intestinal type) also runs the risk of recurrence after cystectomy, or intraoperative rupture of cyst. Laparoscopic procedure for BOT has not increased the risk of recurrence. Fertility preserving procedures are generally accepted, except in advanced stage SBT with invasive implants. Only cystectomy shows a significant risk of recurrence. Re-staging surgery and full staging surgery is not necessary for all BOT. We should not attempt to treat them uniformly, by the single diagnosis of "borderline tumor". It depends on histologic type. Close communication with the pathologist is necessary to gain more detail and ask more pathological samples in order to make the optimal treatment strategy for each individual patients.

Loss of p16INK4A Expression in Low-grade Ovarian Serous Carcinomas

According to a tumor progression model, low-grade ovarian serous carcinomas may evolve from serous borderline tumors or micropapillary tumors. We sought to investigate the role of and associations between BRAF mutational status, extracellular signal regulated kinase activation, and p16(INK4A) expression in various types of ovarian serous tumors. We analyzed 29 typical ovarian serous borderline tumors, 8 micropapillary tumors, 4 low-grade invasive ovarian serous carcinomas, and 24 high-grade invasive ovarian serous carcinomas for the BRAF mutational status at codon 600; in addition, expression levels of the downstream signaling protein extracellular signal regulated kinase and the p16(INK4A) tumor suppressor protein were assessed by immunohistochemistry. There was a decline in p16(INK4A) expression from serous borderline tumors to micropapillary tumors with almost complete loss in low-grade invasive carcinomas. High-grade carcinomas had a variable p16(INK4A) expression pattern. We found a T1799A BRAF mutation in 12 typical serous borderline tumors (41%) and 1 micropapillary tumor (12.5%). No mutations were found in the low-grade and high-grade invasive carcinomas (0%). Among the typical borderline tumors, cases with BRAF mutations tended to have stronger p16(INK4A) expression compared with cases with wild-type BRAF. No other correlations were identified between the BRAF mutational status and expression levels of the analyzed proteins. Loss of p16(INK4A) expression may be a pathogenetic factor in the progression from serous borderline tumors to low-grade invasive carcinomas. The divergent molecular profiles support the theory that high-grade carcinomas are unrelated to serous borderline tumors or low-grade carcinomas.

Research developments on the histopathology and prognostic predictors of serous borderline tumor of ovary

Serous borderline tumor of ovary (SBT) includes two subtypes of typical serous borderline tumor and micropapillary variant, which have different histopathology features. Although SBTs behave in either way of the benign counterparts or malignant serous carcinomas, microinvasion, peritoneal implants, and nodal involvement are all very common in both subtypes of typical SBT and the micropapillary variant. The prognosis of the patients with serous borderline tumor of ovary and the mechanism of the microinvasion, peritoneal implantation and nodal involvement are still being debated, nor is there universal agreement about the management of SBT. To identify the histopathologic features, prognostic predictors of the SBT, and its association with ovarian serous carcinomas, we reviewed the majority of the relevant papers published in recent literature.

A petefészek serosus „borderline” tumorainak diagnosztikai nehézségei

About 15-20% of all ovarian neoplasms are of borderline type (or atypical proliferative or carcinoma of low malignant potential). They represent a common diagnostic and treatment problem both for the pathologist and for clinicians. The borderline tumors occur most commonly in childbearing age, show an indolent course and have good prognosis but are resistant to the traditional chemotherapies. The serous borderline tumors are the most common types of borderline ovarian tumors and they can cause differential diagnostic problems even for the experienced pathologist. We studied 30 cases which were diagnosed in our institute from 2000 to 2008. Thirteen were typical serous borderline tumors, in 7 cases the pattern was micropapillary, in 2 cases with microinvasion and in the remaining 8 cases the borderline tumors were associated with low-grade serous carcinomas. Seventeen of the 22 borderline cases were stage I tumors. There were noninvasive implants in the remaining 5 cases and in the cases of the low-grade carcinomas we could find, besides the noninvasive implants (in 3 cases), invasive implants or metastasis too. The main diagnostic problems in serous ovarian borderline tumors are the presence of micropapillary pattern, to detect microinvasion, or to differentiate the pseudo-borderline pattern of the low-grade serous tumors from a real borderline tumor and especially to diagnose the extraovarian diseases (types of implants). We discuss these diagnostic problems and criteria according to recent literature and our experience.

Micropapillary Serous Carcinoma

Noninvasive micropapillary serous carcinoma of the ovary is also referred to as the micropapillary variant of serous borderline tumor and displays a characteristic pattern of papillary branching but lacks invasion. In contrast, invasive micropapillary serous carcinoma is the usual form of low-grade invasive serous carcinoma. There is a consensus that peritoneal “implants” associated with serous borderline tumors that display invasive features (“invasive implants”) have a poor prognosis with a 7-year survival of 66%, and can also be referred to as invasive carcinoma. Evidence indicates that noninvasive micropapillary serous carcinoma has a strong association with invasive implants as compared with typical serous borderline tumors (49% vs. 7%, respectively, P < 0.0001). After excluding micropapillary serous borderline tumors and those with invasive implants, the remaining patients with serous borderline tumors have a survival of virtually 100%, thereby obviating the need for the serous borderline category.

Serous borderline tumors of the ovary: a long-term follow-up study of 137 cases, including 18 with a micropapillary pattern and 20 with microinvasion.

The natural history of serous borderline tumors (SBTs) of the ovary varies considerably. A group of investigators have proposed that a small subset of SBTs with a micropapillary architecture and an allegedly higher incidence of invasive peritoneal implants should be designated "micropapillary serous carcinomas." Based on the overall favorable prognosis of the nonmicropapillary SBTs, these investigators have recommended abandoning the borderline category of serous tumors, restricting them to benign (benign and typical SBTs) and malignant types; other investigators, however, are in favor of retaining the original grouping, designating borderline tumors with a micropapillary pattern as such instead of designating them carcinomas. We have reviewed the clinicopathologic records of 137 patients with ovarian SBTs and obtained follow-up information on 106 of them ranging from 1 to 18 years (mean 7 years). Of the 21 patients with stage I tumors who had conservative surgical treatment, only two (9.5%) were subsequently found to have tumor in the contralateral ovary. Both were successfully managed by reoperation alone. Forty-five stage I patients had procedures that included bilateral oophorectomy, and two of them (4.4%) had a pelvic recurrence, which was fatal in one patient (whose tumor had been understaged) and occurred on multiple occasions in the other patient, finally transforming into invasive carcinoma; that patient survived. Of the 45 stage II-IV patients, only the six (13%) with invasive implants had an unfavorable outcome: three died of tumor (from 7 to 9.3 years), and the other three were alive with progressive disease from 5 to 10 years. Solid epithelial nests or small papillae surrounded by clefts and micropapillary architecture were found more often in invasive than in noninvasive implants. However, the only feature specifically associated with a poor outcome was obvious destructive invasion of the underlying tissue. Among the 137 SBTs, we identified 18 cases of serous borderline tumors with a micropapillary pattern (SBT-MP) (so-called "micropapillary carcinoma") and 20 cases of SBT with microinvasion (SBT-Minv) (three of which were also micropapillary). We compared the two groups of tumors with the remaining 102 cases of typical SBTs (which lacked micropapillary pattern and microinvasion). Of the 17 patients with SBT-MP and follow-up data, only the one patient with invasive implants had an unfavorable outcome; similarly, of the two patients with SBT-Minv and an unfavorable outcome, one had invasive implants and the other had been incompletely staged. SBTs have a very favorable prognosis, but complete surgical staging and prolonged follow-up are advised because pelvic recurrence and occasionally transformation to invasive carcinoma may occur. Designation of SBTs as "atypical proliferative tumors" is not recommended because it discourages complete surgical staging and follow-up. Advanced stage tumors with noninvasive implants are common, characteristically behave in a benign fashion, and can be safely treated conservatively. The rare SBTs associated with invasive implants are almost always fatal. SBT-MP and SBT-Minv are much closer in their biologic behavior to SBTs than to serous carcinomas. The micropapillary pattern alone does not imply an unfavorable prognosis; only micropapillary tumors associated with invasive implants behave aggressively.

Mullerian papilloma–like proliferation arising in cystic pelvic endosalpingiosis

This report describes an unusual epithelial proliferation occurring in pelvic cystic endosalpingiosis. A cyst mass lined by a layer of ciliated epithelial cells involved the posterior surface of the cervix and vagina. The epithelial proliferation within the wall resembled a mullerian papilloma with fibrous and fibrovascular cores lined by bland cuboidal epithelial cells. Other areas had a microglandular growth pattern resembling cervical microglandular hyperplasia, and focally there was a solid growth pattern. Foci of typical endosalpingiosis involved the surface of both ovaries and pelvic soft tissues. The cystic lesion recurred after partial cystectomy and drainage and was followed up radiologically and with periodic fine-needle aspiration. Part of the wall of the cyst removed 11 years after the original surgery showed an identical epithelial proliferation. MIB1 staining showed a proliferation index of less than 5%, contrasting with the higher proliferation index of a typical serous borderline tumor. The differential diagnosis is discussed. As far as we are aware, this is the first report of such a benign epithelial proliferation involving cystic endosalpingiosis. HUM PATHOL 33:944-946. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Ovarian serous borderline tumors with stromal microinvasion: A report of 21 cases

The clinicopathologic features of 21 cases of otherwise typical serous borderline tumors that contained small foci of stromal invasion were reviewed. The mean age of the patients was 43 years and six of them were pregnant at the time of diagnosis. Nineteen tumors were stage I, one was stage III (para-aortic lymph node involvement) and one was stage IV (parenchymal liver metastasis). The tumor invaded the stroma predominantly as individual cells or nests or clusters of cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm (17 cases), as small confluent nests with a cribriform pattern (two cases) and as rounded aggregates of papillae (two cases). Seven women were treated with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy; 13 had less than bilateral oophorectomy. Of the 17 patients for whom followup data were available, 16 were without evidence of disease 1 to 11 (mean, 5.2) years postoperatively, and one patient had a serous borderline tumor with microinvasion in a conserved contralateral ovary 2.8 years postoperatively, but was well 6 months after a partial oophorectomy. These data suggest that serous borderline tumors with microinvasion have a prognosis similar to that of the usual serous borderline tumor, and that conservation of the contralateral ovary and uterus may be acceptable therapy in young women who wish to preserve their fertility.