Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Histologische Malignitätsgraduierung des Ovarialkarzinoms

Überblick und Empfehlung

Histological grading of epithelial ovarian cancer

Review and recommendation

  • Übersichten
  • Published:
Der Pathologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Malignitätsgraduierung des Ovarialkarzinoms ist für die Therapieentscheidung wichtig und hat prognostische Bedeutung. Bisher ist jedoch kein einheitliches System zur Graduierung etabliert. Mehrere Gradingsysteme sind in Gebrauch, wie z. B. das FIGO-, WHO- und Silverberg-Grading, die nicht oder nur unzureichend übersetzbar sind. Darüber hinaus lassen sich die einzelnen Gradingsysteme unterschiedlich gut auf die verschiedenen histologischen Typen des Ovarialkarzinoms anwenden. Für die serösen Karzinome hat sich ein binäres System durchgesetzt, das die unterschiedliche Pathogenese von Low-grade- und High-grade-Karzinomen widerspiegelt. Einheitliche Richtlinien zur Graduierung des Ovarialkarzinoms sind notwendig und sollten sich an der prognostischen Aussagekraft orientieren. In dieser Arbeit werden die verschiedenen vorhandenen Gradingsysteme vorgestellt und in ihrem prognostischen Wert verglichen. Die Arbeit zeigt auf, dass die Graduierung der Ovarialkarzinome typspezifisch erfolgen sollte und gibt Empfehlungen zur Graduierung der einzelnen histologischen Typen.

Abstract

Histological grading of ovarian cancer has prognostic relevance and implications for treatment decisions. No standardized grading system has been established so far. Several grading systems are currently being used, including the FIGO, WHO, and Silverberg grading systems which cannot be directly translated into each other. Furthermore, individual grading criteria are not uniformly applicable to different histological subtypes. For serous ovarian cancer a binary grading system is now in use as the distinction between low-grade versus high-grade carcinomas reflects the different pathogenesis of these entities. Uniform guidelines for grading ovarian cancer are necessary and should ideally reflect the prognosis. This article provides an overview of commonly used grading systems and their prognostic value. The article demonstrates that a type-specific grading of ovarian cancer should be performed and recommendations for grading the various histological subtypes are given.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Ayhan A, Kurman RJ, Yemelyanova A et al (2009) Defining the cut point between low-grade and high-grade ovarian serous carcinomas: a clinicopathologic and molecular genetic analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 33:1220–1224

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ayhan A, Mao TL, Seckin T et al (2012) Loss of ARID1A expression is an early molecular event in tumor progression from ovarian endometriotic cyst to clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 22:1310–1315

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Benda JA, Zaino R (1994) GOG pathology group manual. Gynecologic Oncology Group, Buffalo

  4. Bodurka DC, Deavers MT, Tian C et al (2012) Reclassification of serous ovarian carcinoma by a 2-tier system: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer 118:3087–3094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eichhorn JH, Young RH (2004) Transitional cell carcinoma of the ovary: a morphologic study of 100 cases with emphasis on differential diagnosis. Am J Surg Pathol 28:453–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Espinosa I, Catasus L, Canet B et al (2011) Gene expression analysis identifies two groups of ovarian high-grade serous carcinomas with different prognosis. Mod Pathol 24:846–854

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Farley JFPi, DiSaia PJGOG (2011) A phase II evaluation of temsirolimus (CCI-779) in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by temsirolimus (CCI-779) consolidation as first-line therapy in the treatment of stage III-IV clear cell carcinoma of the ovary In: ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01196429)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gore ME, Gershenson DMPiUCL (2012) Carboplatin and paclitaxel or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab, as first-line therapy in treating patients with newly diagnosed stage II, stage III, stage IV, or recurrent stage I epithelial ovarian cancer or fallopian tube cancer. In: ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01081262)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hart WR, Norris HJ (1973) Borderline and malignant mucinous tumors of the ovary. Histologic criteria and clinical behavior. Cancer 31:1031–1045

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoerl HD, Hart WR (1998) Primary ovarian mucinous cystadenocarcinomas: a clinicopathologic study of 49 cases with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 22:1449–1462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kommoss F, Kommoss S, Schmidt D et al (2005) Survival benefit for patients with advanced-stage transitional cell carcinomas vs. other subtypes of ovarian carcinoma after chemotherapy with platinum and paclitaxel. Gynecol Oncol 97:195–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kommoss S, Bois A du, Schmidt D et al (2006) Chemotherapy may be more effective in highly proliferative ovarian carcinomas – a translational research subprotocol of a prospective randomized phase III study (AGO-OVAR 3 protocol). Gynecol Oncol 103:67–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kommoss S, Schmidt D, Kommoss F et al (2009) Histological grading in a large series of advanced stage ovarian carcinomas by three widely used grading systems: consistent lack of prognostic significance. A translational research subprotocol of a prospective randomized phase III study (AGO-OVAR 3 protocol). Virchows Arch 454:249–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kurman RJ, Shih Ie M (2010) The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol 34:433–443

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kurman RJ, Carcangiu LM, Herrington CS, Young RH (eds) (2014) WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. IARC Press, Lyon

  17. Lee KR, Scully RE (2000) Mucinous tumors of the ovary: a clinicopathologic study of 196 borderline tumors (of intestinal type) and carcinomas, including an evaluation of 11 cases with ‚pseudomyxoma peritonei’. Am J Surg Pathol 24:1447–1464

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DK, AWMF) (2013) S3-Leitlinie Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge maligner Ovarialtumoren, Version 1.0. AWMF Registrierungsnummer: 032-035OL. http://leitlinienprogramm-onkologiede/Leitlinien70html

  19. Mackay HJ, Brady MF, Oza AM et al (2010) Prognostic relevance of uncommon ovarian histology in women with stage III/IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20:945–952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Malpica A (2008) Grading of ovarian cancer: a histotype-specific approach. Int J Gynecol Pathol 27:175–181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Malpica A, Deavers MT, Lu K et al (2004) Grading ovarian serous carcinoma using a two-tier system. Am J Surg Pathol 28:496–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Malpica A, Deavers MT, Tornos C et al (2007) Interobserver and intraobserver variability of a two-tier system for grading ovarian serous carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 31:1168–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McCluggage WG (2011) Morphological subtypes of ovarian carcinoma: a review with emphasis on new developments and pathogenesis. Pathology 43:420–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Riopel MA, Ronnett BM, Kurman RJ (1999) Evaluation of diagnostic criteria and behavior of ovarian intestinal-type mucinous tumors: atypical proliferative (borderline) tumors and intraepithelial, microinvasive, invasive, and metastatic carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 23:617–635

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ryu SY, Park SI, Nam BH et al (2009) Prognostic significance of histological grade in clear-cell carcinoma of the ovary: a retrospective study of Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group. Ann Oncol 20:1032–1036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shih Ie M, Kurman RJ (2004) Ovarian tumorigenesis: a proposed model based on morphological and molecular genetic analysis. Am J Pathol 164:1511–1518

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shimizu Y, Kamoi S, Amada S et al (1998) Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma: testing of a proposed system in a series of 461 patients with uniform treatment and follow-up. Cancer 82:893–901

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shimizu Y, Kamoi S, Amada S et al (1998) Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma. I. Prognostic significance of histopathologic features – problems involved in the architectural grading system. Gynecol Oncol 70:2–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Silverberg SG (2000) Histopathologic grading of ovarian carcinoma: a review and proposal. Int J Gynecol Pathol 19:7–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Singer G, Oldt R, III, Cohen Y et al (2003) Mutations in BRAF and KRAS characterize the development of low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:484–486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Singh N, Ayhan A, Menon U et al (2008) Grading of serous ovarian carcinoma: further evidence of a lack of agreement between conventional grading systems. Histopathology 52:393–395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Uzan C, Berretta R, Rolla M et al (2012) Management and prognosis of endometrioid borderline tumors of the ovary. Surg Oncol 21:178–184

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vang R, Shih Ie M, Salani R et al (2008) Subdividing ovarian and peritoneal serous carcinoma into moderately differentiated and poorly differentiated does not have biologic validity based on molecular genetic and in vitro drug resistance data. Am J Surg Pathol 32:1667–1674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Watkin W, Silva EG, Gershenson DM (1992) Mucinous carcinoma of the ovary. Pathologic prognostic factors. Cancer 69:208–212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yamamoto S, Kasajima A, Takano M et al (2011) Validation of the histologic grading for ovarian clear cell adenocarcinoma: a retrospective multi-institutional study by the Japan Clear Cell Carcinoma Study Group. Int J Gynecol Pathol 30:129–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yamamoto S, Tsuda H, Takano M et al (2012) Loss of ARID1A protein expression occurs as an early event in ovarian clear-cell carcinoma development and frequently coexists with PIK3CA mutations. Mod Pathol 25:615–624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Young RH, Hart WR (1992) Renal cell carcinoma metastatic to the ovary: a report of three cases emphasizing possible confusion with ovarian clear cell adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 11:96–104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Young RH, Scully RE (1987) Oxyphilic clear cell carcinoma of the ovary. A report of nine cases. Am J Surg Pathol 11:661–667

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zaino RJ, Kurman RJ, Diana KL, Morrow CP (1995) The utility of the revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics histologic grading of endometrial adenocarcinoma using a defined nuclear grading system. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 75:81–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. S. Hauptmann, A. du Bois, I. Meinhold-Herlein, J. Pfisterer, S. Avril geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Pathologie, Krankenhaus Düren gGmbH, Roonstr. 30, 52351, Düren, Deutschland

    S. Hauptmann

  2. Klinik für Gynäkologie und Gynäkologische Onkologie, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Essen, Deutschland

    A. du Bois

  3. Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtsmedizin, Uniklinik der RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland

    I. Meinhold-Herlein

  4. Zentrum für Gynäkologische Onkologie, Kiel, Deutschland

    J. Pfisterer

  5. Institut für Allgemeine Pathologie und Pathologische Anatomie, Technischen Universität München, München, Deutschland

    S. Avril

Authors
  1. S. Hauptmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. du Bois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Meinhold-Herlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Pfisterer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Avril
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Hauptmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hauptmann, S., du Bois, A., Meinhold-Herlein, I. et al. Histologische Malignitätsgraduierung des Ovarialkarzinoms. Pathologe 35, 497–503 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-014-1948-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-014-1948-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation