Skip to main content
Log in

Is it necessary to do retroperitoneal evaluation in borderline epithelial ovarian tumors?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript



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.


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.


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.

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Taylor HC Jr (1929) Malignant and semimalignant tumors of the ovary. Surg Gynecol Obstet 48:204–230

    Google Scholar 

  2. Staging announcement (1986) FIGO cancer committee. Gynecol Oncol 25:383–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Serov SF, Scully RE, Sobin LH (1973) International histological typing of ovarian tumour, 9, histological typing of ovarian tumours. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bell DA, Longacre TA, Prat J (2004) Serous borderline (low malignant potential, atypical proliferative) ovarian tumors: workshop perspectives. Hum Pathol 35:934–948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Russell P (1984) Borderline tumors of the ovary. A conceptual dilemma. Clin Obstet Gynecol 11:259–277

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Yazigi R, Sandstad J, Munoy AK (1998) Primary staging in ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 31:402–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones MB (2006) Borderline ovarian tumors: current concepts for prognostic factors and clinical management. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:517–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Trimble CL, Trimble EL (1994) Management of epithelial ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 55:52–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Trimble CL, Trimble EL (2003) Ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Oncology (Huntingt) 17:1563

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gershenson DM (2002) Is micropapillary serous carcinoma for real? Cancer 95:677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Buttin BM, Herzog TJ, Powell MA, Rader JS (2002) Epithelial ovarian tumors of low malignant potential: the role of microinvasion. Obstet Gynecol 99:11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sood AK, Abu-Rustum NR, Barakat RR et al (2005) Fifth international conference on ovarian cancer: challenges and opportunities. Gynecol Oncol 97:916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boriboonhirusam D, Sermboon A (2004) Accuracy of frozen section in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumor. J Obstet Gyneacol Research 30:394–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Boran N, Cil AP, Tulunay G et al (2005) Fertility and recurrence results of conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 97:845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. NIH Consensus Conference (1995) Ovarian cancer: screening, treatment, and follow-up. JAMA 273:491

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zehra Meltem Pirimoglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: