Abstract
Objective
Borderline epithelial ovarian tumors have good prognosis without any adjuvant therapy. The advantage of aggressive surgical staging, especially retroperitoneal lymph node sampling is questionable in patients with borderline ovarian tumors. We designed this study to evaluate the necessity of retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection in the treatment of borderline epithelial ovarian tumors.
Study design
From 1998 to 2007, 57 women who were diagnosed with borderline epithelial ovarian tumor in our hospital were prospectively accrued and evaluated; 27 of them (47.3%) had full surgical staging procedure including para-aortic and pelvic node dissection. Student’s t-test was used to compare follow-up times.
Results
Median follow-up time was 54.6 (12–96) months for all patients in the study. There was one recurrence of disease, which was in the complete staging group. Follow-up times of patients were not statistically different between lymph node evaluated and non-evaluated groups (p = 0.10). We did not find any metastasis in lymph nodes in 27 women who had complete surgical staging procedure.
Conclusion
Patients with borderline epithelial tumors who had full surgical staging procedure do not have survival advantage over those who had no lymph node evaluation and yet were patients with malignant ovarian tumors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Taylor HC Jr (1929) Malignant and semimalignant tumors of the ovary. Surg Gynecol Obstet 48:204–230
Staging announcement (1986) FIGO cancer committee. Gynecol Oncol 25:383–385
Serov SF, Scully RE, Sobin LH (1973) International histological typing of ovarian tumour, 9, histological typing of ovarian tumours. World Health Organization, Geneva
Seidman JD, Soslow RA, Vang R et al (2004) Borderline ovarian tumors: diverse contemporary viewpoints on terminology and diagnostic criteria with illustrative images. Hum Pathol 35:918–933
Bell DA, Longacre TA, Prat J (2004) Serous borderline (low malignant potential, atypical proliferative) ovarian tumors: workshop perspectives. Hum Pathol 35:934–948
Russell P (1984) Borderline tumors of the ovary. A conceptual dilemma. Clin Obstet Gynecol 11:259–277
Yazigi R, Sandstad J, Munoy AK (1998) Primary staging in ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 31:402–408
Leake JF, Rader JS, Woodruff JD, Rosenhein NB (1991) Retroperitoneal lymphatic involvement with epithelial ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 42:124–130
Snider DB, Stuart GC, Nation JG, Robertson DI (1991) Evaluation of surgical staging in Stage 1 low malignancy potential ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 40:129–132
Jones MB (2006) Borderline ovarian tumors: current concepts for prognostic factors and clinical management. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:517–525
Pecorelli S, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P et al (1998) FIGO annual report of the results of treatment in gynaecological cancer. Carcinoma of the ovary. J Epidemiol Biostat 3:75
Kaern J, Trope CG, Abeler VM (1993) A retrospective study of 370 borderline tumors of the ovary treated at the Norwegian Radium Hospitl from 1970 to 1982. Cancer 71:1810–1820
Trimble CL, Trimble EL (1994) Management of epithelial ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 55:52–61
Trimble CL, Trimble EL (2003) Ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Oncology (Huntingt) 17:1563
Rota SM, Zanetta G, Iede N et al (1999) Clinical relevance of retroperitoneal involvement from epithelial ovarian tumors of borderline malignancy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 9:477–480
Morice P, Camatte S, Rey A et al (2003) Prognostic factors for patients with advanced stage serous borderline tumours of the ovary. Ann Oncol 14:592
Gershenson DM (2002) Is micropapillary serous carcinoma for real? Cancer 95:677
Kaern J, Trope CG, Kristensen GB, Abeler VM (1993) DNA ploidy; the most important prognostic factor in patients with borderline tumors of the ovary. Int J Gynecol Cancer 3:349
Buttin BM, Herzog TJ, Powell MA, Rader JS (2002) Epithelial ovarian tumors of low malignant potential: the role of microinvasion. Obstet Gynecol 99:11
Sood AK, Abu-Rustum NR, Barakat RR et al (2005) Fifth international conference on ovarian cancer: challenges and opportunities. Gynecol Oncol 97:916
Geomini P, Bremer G, Kruitwagen R, Mol BW (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of frozen section diagnosis of the adnexal mass: a metaanalysis. Gynecol Oncol 96:1
Boriboonhirusam D, Sermboon A (2004) Accuracy of frozen section in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumor. J Obstet Gyneacol Research 30:394–398
Boran N, Cil AP, Tulunay G et al (2005) Fertility and recurrence results of conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 97:845
Morice P, Camette S, El Hassan J et al (2001) Clinical outcomes and fertility after conservative treatment of ovarian borderline tumors. Fertil Steril 75:92
Suh-Burgmann E (2006) Long-term outcomes following conservative surgery for borderline tumor of the ovary: a large population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 103:841
Zanetta G, Rota S, Chiari S et al (2001) Behavior of borderline tumors with particular interest to persistence, recurrence, and progression to invasive carcinoma: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 19:2658
NIH Consensus Conference (1995) Ovarian cancer: screening, treatment, and follow-up. JAMA 273:491
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pirimoglu, Z.M., Afsin, Y., Guzelmeric, K. et al. Is it necessary to do retroperitoneal evaluation in borderline epithelial ovarian tumors?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 277, 411–414 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0478-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0478-2