Table of Contents General Information Treatment Option Overview Early Stage Ovarian Low Malignant Potential Tumors Advanced Stage Ovarian Low Malignant Potential Tumors Changes to This Summary (07/03/2003) More Information
General Information
Tumors of low malignant potential (borderline tumors) account for 15% of all
epithelial ovarian cancers. Nearly 75% of these are stage I at the time of
diagnosis. These tumors must be recognized, since their prognosis and
treatment is clearly different from the frankly malignant invasive carcinomas. A review of 22 series (953 patients) with a mean follow-up of 7 years revealed
a survival rate of 92% for patients with advanced stage tumors if patients with so-called
invasive implants were excluded. The cause of death was determined to be
benign complications of disease (e.g., small bowel obstruction), complications
of therapy, and only rarely (0.7%), malignant transformation.[1] In one
series, the 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year survival rates of patients with low
malignant potential tumors (all stages), as demonstrated by clinical life table
analysis, were 97%, 95%, 92%, and 89%.[2] In this series, mortality was stage
dependent: 0.7%, 4.2%, and 26.8% of patients with stages I, II, and III
respectively, died of disease.[2] One large study showed early stage, serous
histology, and younger age to be associated with a more favorable prognosis.[3]
In contrast to the excellent survival rates for early stage disease generally
reported, the FIGO Annual Report (#21) included 529 patients with stage I tumors with a 5-year actuarial survival rate of 89.1%. Similarly good survival was found in a
large prospective study.[4] Nonetheless, these survival rates are clearly in
contrast with the 30% survival rate for invasive tumors (all stages). The less
common endometrioid tumor of low malignant potential should not be regarded as
malignant since it seldom, if ever, metastasizes. Malignant transformation
can, however, occur and may be associated with a similar tumor outside of the
ovary; such tumors are the result of either a second primary or rupture of the
primary endometrial tumor.[5]
References
- Kurman RJ, Trimble CL: The behavior of serous tumors of low malignant potential: are they ever malignant? Int J Gynecol Pathol 12 (2): 120-7, 1993.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Leake JF, Currie JL, Rosenshein NB, et al.: Long-term follow-up of serous ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 47 (2): 150-8, 1992.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Kaern J, Tropé CG, Abeler VM: A retrospective study of 370 borderline tumors of the ovary treated at the Norwegian Radium Hospital from 1970 to 1982. A review of clinicopathologic features and treatment modalities. Cancer 71 (5): 1810-20, 1993.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Zanetta G, Rota S, Chiari S, et al.: Behavior of borderline tumors with particular interest to persistence, recurrence, and progression to invasive carcinoma: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 19 (10): 2658-64, 2001.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Norris HJ: Proliferative endometrioid tumors and endometrioid tumors of low malignant potential of the ovary. Int J Gynecol Pathol 12 (2): 134-40, 1993.
[PUBMED Abstract]
Back to Top Treatment Option Overview
The designations in PDQ that treatments are “standard” or “under clinical
evaluation” are not to be used as a basis for reimbursement determinations.
Back to Top Early Stage Ovarian Low Malignant Potential Tumors
The value of complete staging has not been demonstrated for early stage cases,
but the opposite ovary should be carefully evaluated for evidence of bilateral
disease. Although the impact of surgical staging on therapeutic management is
not defined, in one study 7 of 27 patients with presumed localized disease were
upstaged following complete surgical staging.[1] In two other studies, 16%
and 18% of patients with presumed localized tumors of low malignant potential
were upstaged as a result of a staging laparotomy.[2,3] In one of these
studies, the yield for serous tumors was 30.8% (4/13) compared to 0% (0/12) for
mucinous tumors.[4] In yet another study, patients with localized
intraperitoneal disease and negative lymph nodes had a low incidence of
recurrence (5%), whereas patients with localized intraperitoneal disease and
positive lymph nodes had a statistically significantly higher incidence of
recurrence (50%).[5]
In early stage disease (stage I/II), no additional treatment is indicated for a
completely resected tumor of low malignant potential.[6] When it is desirable
to retain childbearing potential, a unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is
adequate therapy.[7,8] In the presence of bilateral ovarian cystic neoplasms,
or a single ovary, partial oophorectomy can be employed when fertility is
desired by the patient.[9] Some physicians stress the importance of limiting ovarian
cystectomy to stage IA patients in whom the margins of the cystectomy specimens
are free of tumor.[4] In one large series, the relapse rate was higher with
more conservative surgery (cystectomy >unilateral oophorectomy >TAH, BSO);
differences, however, were not statistically significant and survival was
nearly 100% for all groups.[5,10] When childbearing is not a consideration, a
total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is appropriate
therapy. Once a woman has completed her family, most, but not all,[4]
physicians favor removal of remaining ovarian tissue as it is at risk of
recurrence of a borderline tumor, or even rarely, a carcinoma.[2,7]
References
- Yazigi R, Sandstad J, Munoz AK: Primary staging in ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 31 (3): 402-8, 1988.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Snider DD, Stuart GC, Nation JG, et al.: Evaluation of surgical staging in stage I low malignant potential ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 40 (2): 129-32, 1991.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Leake JF, Rader JS, Woodruff JD, et al.: Retroperitoneal lymphatic involvement with epithelial ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 42 (2): 124-30, 1991.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Piura B, Dgani R, Blickstein I, et al.: Epithelial ovarian tumors of borderline malignancy: a study of 50 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2 (4): 189-197, 1992.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Leake JF, Currie JL, Rosenshein NB, et al.: Long-term follow-up of serous ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 47 (2): 150-8, 1992.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Tropé C, Kaern J, Vergote IB, et al.: Are borderline tumors of the ovary overtreated both surgically and systemically? A review of four prospective randomized trials including 253 patients with borderline tumors. Gynecol Oncol 51 (2): 236-43, 1993.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Kaern J, Tropé CG, Abeler VM: A retrospective study of 370 borderline tumors of the ovary treated at the Norwegian Radium Hospital from 1970 to 1982. A review of clinicopathologic features and treatment modalities. Cancer 71 (5): 1810-20, 1993.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Lim-Tan SK, Cajigas HE, Scully RE: Ovarian cystectomy for serous borderline tumors: a follow-up study of 35 cases. Obstet Gynecol 72 (5): 775-81, 1988.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Rice LW, Berkowitz RS, Mark SD, et al.: Epithelial ovarian tumors of borderline malignancy. Gynecol Oncol 39 (2): 195-8, 1990.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Casey AC, Bell DA, Lage JM, et al.: Epithelial ovarian tumors of borderline malignancy: long-term follow-up. Gynecol Oncol 50 (3): 316-22, 1993.
[PUBMED Abstract]
Back to Top Advanced Stage Ovarian Low Malignant Potential Tumors
Patients with advanced disease should undergo a total hysterectomy, bilateral
salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, node sampling, and aggressive cytoreductive
surgery. Patients with stage II/III disease with no gross residual tumor have
had a 100% survival rate in some series regardless of the follow-up
duration.[1,2] The 7-year survival rate of patients with gross residual
disease was only 69% in one large series,[3] and appears to be inversely
proportional to the length of follow-up.[3]
For patients with more advanced stage disease and microscopic or gross residual
disease, chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy are not indicated. There is
scant evidence that postoperative chemotherapy or radiation therapy alters the
course of this disease in any beneficial way.[1,3-6] In one study of
364 patients without residual tumor, adjuvant therapy had no effect on disease-free or corrected survival when stratified for disease stage.[7] Patients
without residual tumor who received no adjuvant treatment had a survival rate
equal to or greater than the treated groups. There have been no controlled
studies comparing postoperative treatment with no treatment.
In a review of 150 patients with borderline ovarian tumors, the survival of
patients with a residual tumor of less than 2 centimeters was significantly
better than those with a residual tumor from 2 to 5 centimeters and greater
than 5 centimeters.[8] Whether invasive implants imply a worse prognosis
remains an unsettled question. Some investigators have correlated invasive
implants with poor prognosis [9] while others have not.[2,10] Some studies
have suggested that it may be possible to use DNA ploidy of the tumors to
identify those patients who will develop aggressive disease.[11,12] A study
could not correlate DNA ploidy of the primary serous tumor with survival but
found that aneuploid invasive implants were associated with a poor
prognosis.[13] There is no evidence that treatment of patients with aneuploid
tumors would have an impact on survival. No significant association was found
between p53 and Her-2/neu overexpression and tumor recurrence or survival.[14]
In the face of clinical progression, further tumor reductive surgery followed
by chemotherapy is certainly indicated. If the symptom-free interval is long,
using chemotherapy after a secondary cytoreductive procedure is not advisable.
If, on the other hand, the disease symptomatically recurs rapidly, chemotherapy
may be beneficial. Reports have surgically documented the efficacy of
chemotherapy on some patients with microscopic or gross residual
disease.[15,16] A Gynecologic Oncology Group study used melphalan chemotherapy for patients with
progressive disease, with cisplatin for melphalan failures.[17]
References
- Barnhill D, Heller P, Brzozowski P, et al.: Epithelial ovarian carcinoma of low malignant potential. Obstet Gynecol 65 (1): 53-9, 1985.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Bostwick DG, Tazelaar HD, Ballon SC, et al.: Ovarian epithelial tumors of borderline malignancy. A clinical and pathologic study of 109 cases. Cancer 58 (9): 2052-65, 1986.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Leake JF, Currie JL, Rosenshein NB, et al.: Long-term follow-up of serous ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 47 (2): 150-8, 1992.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Casey AC, Bell DA, Lage JM, et al.: Epithelial ovarian tumors of borderline malignancy: long-term follow-up. Gynecol Oncol 50 (3): 316-22, 1993.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Tumors of the ovary: neoplasms derived from coelomic epithelium. In: Morrow CP, Curtin JP: Synopsis of Gynecologic Oncology. 5th ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone, 1998, pp 233-281.
- Sutton GP, Bundy BN, Omura GA, et al.: Stage III ovarian tumors of low malignant potential treated with cisplatin combination therapy (a Gynecologic Oncology Group study). Gynecol Oncol 41 (3): 230-3, 1991.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Kaern J, Tropé CG, Abeler VM: A retrospective study of 370 borderline tumors of the ovary treated at the Norwegian Radium Hospital from 1970 to 1982. A review of clinicopathologic features and treatment modalities. Cancer 71 (5): 1810-20, 1993.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Tamakoshi K, Kikkawa F, Nakashima N, et al.: Clinical behavior of borderline ovarian tumors: a study of 150 cases. J Surg Oncol 64 (2): 147-52, 1997.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Bell DA, Scully RE: Serous borderline tumors of the peritoneum. Am J Surg Pathol 14 (3): 230-9, 1990.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Michael H, Roth LM: Invasive and noninvasive implants in ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential. Cancer 57 (6): 1240-7, 1986.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Friedlander ML, Hedley DW, Swanson C, et al.: Prediction of long-term survival by flow cytometric analysis of cellular DNA content in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 6 (2): 282-90, 1988.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Kaern J, Trope C, Kjorstad KE, et al.: Cellular DNA content as a new prognostic tool in patients with borderline tumors of the ovary. Gynecol Oncol 38 (3): 452-7, 1990.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- de Nictolis M, Montironi R, Tommasoni S, et al.: Serous borderline tumors of the ovary. A clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and quantitative study of 44 cases. Cancer 70 (1): 152-60, 1992.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Eltabbakh GH, Belinson JL, Kennedy AW, et al.: p53 and HER-2/neu overexpression in ovarian borderline tumors. Gynecol Oncol 65 (2): 218-24, 1997.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Fort MG, Pierce VK, Saigo PE, et al.: Evidence for the efficacy of adjuvant therapy in epithelial ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 32 (3): 269-72, 1989.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Gershenson DM, Silva EG: Serous ovarian tumors of low malignant potential with peritoneal implants. Cancer 65 (3): 578-85, 1990.
[PUBMED Abstract]
- Barnhill DR, Kurman RJ, Brady MF, et al.: Preliminary analysis of the behavior of stage I ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 13 (11): 2752-6, 1995.
[PUBMED Abstract]
Back to Top Changes to This Summary (07/03/2003)
The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.
Editorial changes were made to this summary.
Back to Top More Information
About PDQ Additional PDQ Summaries Important:
This information is intended mainly for use by doctors and other health care professionals. If you have questions about this topic, you can ask your doctor, or call the Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237).
Back to Top |