Clinicopathologic Evaluation of Borderline Ovarian Tumours: A Tertiary Centre Experience

Abstract

Objective: Borderline ovarian tumours (BOTs) are rare tumours that are in the intermediate category of benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms. In this study, the clinicopathological features of the cases diagnosed with BOT in the pathology department are presented. Material and methods: The 139 patients were selected retrospectively. Haematoxylin&eosin slides were re-evaluated according to the 2020 World Health Organization classification. The data of the patients were obtained from the hospital archive. Results: The mean age was 44.8. Intraoperative consultation was performed on 114 patients and 86 of them (75.4%) were diagnosed with BOT. The most common histology was serous, followed by mucinous and seromucinous (54.8%, 32.5%, and 7.6%, respectively). Serous histology was observed in 16 of 18 bilateral BOT patients and mucinous histology was not seen. Mean tumour sizes were 10.4 cm in serous BOTs, 18.5 cm in mucinous BOTs and 12.4 cm in seromucinous BOTs. Mean CA-125 levels were 180.2 U/ml (N: 35 U/ml) in serous BOTs, 49.5 U/ml in mucinous BOTs and 35.4 U/ml in seromucinous BOTs. Mean CA-19.9 levels were 85.6 U/ml (N: 35 U/ml) in serous BOTs, 54.4 U/ml in mucinous BOTs and 93 U/ml in seromucinous BOTs. The recurrence rate was 10.9% (n=15), and no disease-related death was seen. Conclusion: Serous BOT is the most common subtype, and especially the vast majority of bilateral BOT has serous histology. Interestingly, the mean CA-19.9 level of seromucinous BOTs was higher than serous and mucinous BOTs. Since the recurrence was observed in very few patients, and no disease-related death was detected, the prognosis can be said to be excellent.

Keywords

• Borderline ovarian tumour
• Brenner tumour
• Neoplasms
• cystic
• mucinous
• and serous; Ovarian neoplasms; Recurrence

References

1. 1. Hauptmann S, Friedrich K, Redline R, Avril S. Ovarian borderline tumors in the 2014 WHO classification:evolving concepts and diagnostic criteria. Virchows Arch. 2017;(470):125–42.
2. 2. Silverberg SG, Bell DA, Kurman RJ, Seidman JD, Prat J, Ath F, et al. Borderline Ovarian Tumors: Key Points and Workshop Summary. Hum Pathol. 2004;(35):910–7.
3. 3. Seidman JD, Soslow RA, Vang R, Berman JJ, Stoler MH, Sherman ME, et al. Borderline Ovarian Tumors: Diverse Contemporary Viewpoints on Terminology and Diagnostic Criteria With Illustrative Images. Hum Pathol. 2004;(35):918–33.
4. 4. Morice P, Uzan C, Fauvet R, Gouy S, Duvillard P, Darai E. Borderline ovarian tumour: pathological diagnostic dilemma and risk factors for invasive or lethal recurrence. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:18–21.
5. 5. Ayhan A, Seda E, Guven G, Guven S, Kucukali T. Recurrence and prognostic factors in borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;98:439–45.
6. 6. Hannibal CG, Vang R, Junge J, Frederiksen K, Kurman RJ, Kjaer SK. A nationwide study of ovarian serous borderline tumors in Denmark 1978–2002. Risk of recurrence, and development of ovarian serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol [Internet]. 2016;(144):174–80. Available from:7. Malpica A, Longacre TA. Prognostic indicators in ovarian serous borderline tumours. Pathology. 2017;1–9.
7. 8. Gungor T, Cetinkaya N, Yalcin H, Ozdal B, Ozgu E, Baser E, et al. Retrospective evaluation of borderline ovarian tumors: single center experience of 183 cases. Arch Gynecol Obs. 2015;(291):123–30.
8. 9. Birge O, Bakır MS, Karadag C, Dinc C, Doğan S, Tuncer HA, et al. Risk factors that increase recurrence in borderline ovarian cancers. Am J Transl Res. 2021;13(7):8438–49.

9. 10. Poncelet C, Fauvet R, Yazbeck C, Coutant C, Darai E. Impact of serum tumor marker determination on the management of women with borderline ovarian tumors: Multivariate analysis of a French multicentre study. Eur J Surg Oncol [Internet].2010;36(11):1066–72. Available from:
10. 11. Gotlieb WH, Chetrit A, Menczer J, Hirsh-Yechezkel G, Lubin F, Friedman E, et al. Demographic and genetic characteristics of patients with borderline ovarian tumors as compared to early stage invasive ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97(3):780–3.
11. 12. Romagnolo C, Gadducci A, Sartori E, Zola P, Maggino T. Management of borderline ovarian tumors: Results of an Italian multicenter study. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;101(2):255–60.
12. 13. Ferrero S, Morotti M, Venturini PL, Peñuela L, Vellone VG, Barra F. Accuracy of intra-operative frozen section in the diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors and clinical impact of underdiagnosis. 2018;1(2):1–7.
13. 14. Song T, Choi CH, Kim H, Kim MK, Kim T, Lee J, et al. Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol [Internet]. 2011;122(1):127–31.
14. 15. Houck K, Nikrui N, Duska L, Chang Y, Fuller AF, Bell D, et al. Borderline Tumors of the Ovary: Correlation of Frozen and Permanent Histopathologic Diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(6):839–43.
15. 16. Kim JH, Kim TJ, Park YG, Lee SH, Lee CW, Song MJ, et al. Clinical analysis of intra-operative frozen section proven borderline tumors of the ovary. J Gynecol Oncol. 2009;20(3):176–80.
16. 17. Göl M, Baloglu A, Yigit S, Dogan M, Aydin Q, Yensel U. Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in ovarian tumors: Is there a change in the course of time? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13(5):593–7.
17. 18. Basaran D, Salman MC, Calis P, Ozek A, Ozgul N, Usubütün A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative consultation (frozen section) in borderline ovarian tumours and factors associated with misdiagnosis. J Obs Gynaecol. 2014;34(5):429–34.
18. 19. Zaiem F, Deirawan H, Kherallah R, Fehmi O, Jang H, Kim S, et al. Accuracy and Reproducibility of Frozen Section Diagnosis in Ovarian Tumors: A 10-Year Experience at a Tertiary Cancer Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021;Aug 17.
19. 20. du Bois AD, Ewald-Riegler N, Du Bois O, Harter P. Borderline tumors of the ovary-a systematic review. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2009;69(9):807–33.
20. 21. Song T, Lee H, Jung W, Yun S, Seong SJ, Choi CH, et al. Elevated Preoperative CA125 or CA19–9 in Borderline Ovarian Tumors: Could It Be Suggestive of Advanced Stage or a Poor Prognosis ? Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2017;83(1):45–51.
21. 22. Engelen MJA, Bruijn HWA De, Hollema H, ten Hoor KA, Willemse PHB, Aalders JG, et al. Serum CA 125, Carcinoembryonic Antigen, and CA 19–9 as Tumor Markers in Borderline Ovarian Tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78(1):16–20.
22. 23. Yamada T, Eguchi S, Yokoo I, Arimoto T. Occurrence of seromucinous borderline tumours in the peritoneal lesions after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. BMJ Case Rep.020;13(12):e234692.
23. 24. Park J, Kim D, Kim J, Kim Y, Kim K, Kim Y, et al. Micropapillary pattern in serous borderline ovarian tumors: Does it matter ? Gynecol Oncol [Internet]. 2011;123(3):511–6. Available from:
24. 25. WHO Classification of Tumours Female Genital Tumours 5th Edition. Lyon (France) : International Agency for Research on Cancer;2020. 40 p.
25. 26. Buttin BM, Herzog TJ, Powell MA, Rader JS, Mutch DG. Epithelial Ovarian Tumors of Low Malignant Potential: The Role of Microinvasion. Obs Gynecol. 2002;99(1):11–7.
26. 27. Morris RT, Gershenson DM, Silva EG, Follen M, Morris M, Wharton JT. Outcome and Reproductive Function After Conservative Surgery for Borderline Ovarian Tumors. Obs Gynecol. 2000;95(4):541–7. 28. JD S, RJ K. Ovarian serous borderline tumors: a critical review of the literature with emphasis on prognostic indicators. Hum Pathol. 2000;31(5):539–57.
27. 29. Qian X, Hua X, Wu J, Shen Y, Cheng X, Wan X. Clinical Predictors of Recurrence and Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Involvement in the Serous Borderline Ovarian Tumor. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;00(00):1–6.
28. 30. McKenney JK, Balzer BL, Longacre TA. Lymph node involvement in ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential (borderline tumors) : pathology, prognosis, and proposed classification. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(5):614–24.
29. 31. Ureyen I, Karalok A, Tasci T, Turkmen O, Boran N, Tulunay G, et al. The Factors Predicting Recurrence in Patients With Serous Borderline Ovarian Tumor. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(1):66–72.