Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · South Asian J Cancer 2020; 09(03): 168-173
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721192
Original Article: Gynecological Cancer

Retrospective Analysis of Factors Affecting Recurrence in Borderline Ovarian Tumors

Mariam Anjum Ifthikar
1   Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India
,
Anupama Rajanbabu
1   Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India
,
Indu R. Nair
2   Department of Pathology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India
,
Vinita Murali
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India
,
Anjaly S. Nair
4   Department of Biostatistics, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita University, Kochi, Kerala, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) are an intermediate form of neoplasia, between benign and malignant. The aim of this retrospective analysis is to evaluate the clinicopathological characteristic profile of BOTs and to determine the predictors of recurrence in BOTs.

Methods A retrospective review of all patients diagnosed, treated, and followed up for BOTs between 2010 and 2017 at Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala, India, was conducted. Clinicopathological details and details of management, outcome, and survival were retrieved, and data were analyzed descriptively and for survival.

Results A total of 103 patients were identified. During the median follow-up of 46.0 months, 15 (14.6%) patients developed recurrent disease, 6 (5.82%) had recurrence with progression to invasive carcinoma, and 9 had recurrent disease with borderline or benign histology. Mucinous tumors were found to have more recurrences than serous BOT (17.8 vs. 12.3%). Disease-related deaths (5/103 [4.9%]) were observed only in patients with progression to invasive carcinoma. Univariate analysis indicated that staging surgery was the most important prognostic factor that affected the disease-free survival ([DFS] 103 vs. 97 vs. 71 months, respectively, for complete staging vs. fertility-preserving staging vs. conservative surgery; p < 0.05).

Conclusions Conservative surgery was associated with a higher risk of recurrence. Fertility-preserving staging surgery is an acceptable option in younger patients. The overall survival is not affected by the mode of surgery.

Keywords

borderline ovarian tumors - implants - low malignant potential - predictors - progression to invasive carcinoma - recurrence - reproductive outcome


Publication History

Article published online:
19 March 2021

© 2020. MedIntel Services Pvt Ltd. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Skírnisdóttir I, Garmo H, Wilander E, Holmberg L. Borderline ovarian tumors in Sweden 1960-2005: trends in incidence and age at diagnosis compared to ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer 2008; 123 (08) 1897-1901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tropé C, Kaern J. Management of borderline tumors of the ovary: state of the art. Semin Oncol 1998; 25 (03) 372-380
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sherman ME, Mink PJ, Curtis R. et al. Survival among women with borderline ovarian tumors and ovarian carcinoma: a population-based analysis. Cancer 2004; 100 (05) 1045-1052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Morris CR, Liu L, Rodriguez AO, Cress RD, Snipes K. Epidemiologic features of borderline ovarian tumors in California: a population-based study. Cancer Causes Control 2013; 24 (04) 665-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 du Bois A, Ewald-Riegler N, de Gregorio N. et al; Arbeitsgmeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group. Borderline tumours of the ovary: a cohort study of the arbeitsgmeinschaft gynäkologische onkologie (AGO) study group. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49 (08) 1905-1914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Trillsch F, Mahner S, Woelber L. et al. Age-dependent differences in borderline ovarian tumours (BOT) regarding clinical characteristics and outcome: results from a sub-analysis of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO) ROBOT study. Ann Oncol 2014; 25 (07) 1320-1327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Song T, Lee YY, Choi CH. et al. Risk factors for progression to invasive carcinoma in patients with borderline ovarian tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014; 24 (07) 1206-1214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ren J, Peng Z, Yang K. A clinicopathologic multivariate analysis affecting recurrence of borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 110 (02) 162-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cusidó M, Balagueró L, Hernandez G. et al; Section of Gynecologic Oncology and Breast Pathology of Spanish Federation of Gynecologic Oncology (SEGO). Results of the national survey of borderline ovarian tumors in Spain. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 104 (03) 617-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Camatte S, Morice P, Thoury A. et al. Impact of surgical staging in patients with macroscopic “stage I” ovarian borderline tumours: analysis of a continuous series of 101 cases. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40 (12) 1842-1849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hendricks A, Denny L, van Wijk L. An audit of the management of women with borderline ovarian tumours treated at Groote Schuur Hospital between 1984–2008. https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11427/25292/thesis_hsf_2017_hendricks_aneeqah.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  • 12 Fischerova D, Zikan M, Dundr P, Cibula D. Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors. Oncologist 2012; 17 (12) 1515-1533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cadron I, Leunen K, Van Gorp T, Amant F, Neven P, Vergote I. Management of borderline ovarian neoplasms. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (20) 2928-2937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Morice P, Camatte S, Wicart-Poque F. et al. Results of conservative management of epithelial malignant and borderline ovarian tumours. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9 (02) 185-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Koskas M, Uzan C, Gouy S. et al. Prognostic factors of a large retrospective series of mucinous borderline tumors of the ovary (excluding peritoneal pseudomyxoma). Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18 (01) 40-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Abascal-Saiz A, Sotillo-Mallo L, de Santiago J, Zapardiel I. Management of borderline ovarian tumours: a comprehensive review of the literature. Ecancermedicalscience 2014; 8: 403
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Benito V, Lubrano A, Arencibia O. et al. Serous and mucinous borderline ovarian tumors: are there real differences between these two entities?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 153 (02) 188-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gungor T, Cetinkaya N, Yalcin H. et al. Retrospective evaluation of borderline ovarian tumors: single center experience of 183 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291 (01) 123-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar