Cellular DNA Content as a New Prognostic Tool in Patients with Borderline Tumors of the Ovary. A Second Look

  • C. Tropé
  • J. Kærn
  • G. Kristensen
  • V. Abeler
  • E. O. Pettersen
Part of the AGO Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Gynäkologische Onkologie book series (AGO)


The over all survival of patients with ovarian borderline tumors has in several studies been reported as excellent, but a small fraction of patients, even in early stages, died of disease [1]. Stage of disease is a strong prognostic parameter but not of that importance as within frankly malignant neoplasms [2]. Histopathologic type and grade of differentiation are important prognostic factors in invasive carcinoma, with mucinous tumors doing better than the other types. Cellular atypia have been suggested of prognostic importance in borderline tumors [Russel 1984], but such grading is highly subjective and difficult to reproduce and standardize and not clearly related to the clinical outcome and therefore of limit value in prediction of individualized prognosis [3, 4, 5].


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bostwick D.G., Tazelaar H.D., Ballon S.C., Hendrickson M.R., Kempson R.L.: Ovarian epithelial tumors of borderline malignancy: A clinical and pathologic study of 109 cases. Cancer 58: 2052–2065, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fox H., Burghardt E.: Prognostic indices in ovarian tumours of borderline malignancy with particular reference to morphometric analysis. In: Ovarian cancer by Tattersall M.H.: 69–101, 1988Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russell P.: The pathological assesments of ovarian neoplasms II. The prolifering epithelial tumours. Pathology 11: 259–282,1979Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fox H.: Ovarian tumors of borderline malignancy. Progress in Cancer Research and Therapy 24: 137–150, 1983Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baak J.P.A., Fox H., Langley F.A., Buckley C.H.: The prognostic value of morphometry in ovarian epithelial tumors of borderline malignancy. Int. J. Gynecol. Path. 4: 186–191, 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedlander M.L., Taylor I.W., Russell P., Musgrove E.A., Hedley D.H., Tattersall M.H.N.: Ploidy as a prognostic factor in ovarian cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Path. 2: 55–63, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rodenburg C.J., Cornelisse C.J., Heintz P.A.M., Hermans J., Fleuren G.J.: Tumor ploidy as a major prognostic factor in advanced ovarian cancer. Cancer 59: 317–323,1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kühn W., Kaufmann M., Feichter G.E., Rummel H.H., Schmid H., Heberling D.: DNA flow cytometry, clinical and morphological parameters as prognostic factors for advanced malignant and borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol. Oncol. 33: 360–367,1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klemi P.J., Joensuu H., Kilholma P., Mäenpää J.: Clinical significance of abnormal nuclear DNA content in serous ovarian tumors. Cancer 62: 2005–2010,1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kærn J., Tropé C., Kjorstad K.E., Abeler V., Pettersen E.O.: Cellular DNA content as a new prognostic tool in patients with borderline tumors of the ovary. Gynecol. Oncol. 38: 452–457,1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hedley D.W., Friedlander M.L.. Taylor I.W., Rugg C.A., Musgrove E.A.: Method for analysis of cellular DNA content of paraffin embedded pathological material using flow cytometry. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 31: 1333–1335,1983Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fosså S.D., Thorud E., Shoaib M.C., Pettersen E.O., Hoie J., Scott-Knudsen O.: DNA flow cytometry in primary breast carcinoma. Acta. Pathol. Microbiol. Immunol. Scand. Sect. 92: 475–480,1984Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fosså S.D., Shoaib M.C., Pettersen E.O., Thorud E.: DNA flow cytometry of cells obtained from old paraffin embedded specimens. A comparison with results of scanning absorption cytometry. Pathol. Res. Pract. 181: 200–205,1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lindmo T., Steen H.B.: Characteristics of a simple high resolution flow cytometry based on a flow configuration. Biophys. J. 28: 33–44,1979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaplan E.L., Meier P.: Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 53: 457–481, 1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tarone R.E., Ware J.: On distribution-free tests for equality of survival distributions. Bio- metrika 64: 156–160,1977Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kærn J., Tropé C., Abeler V.M.: A retrospective study of 370 borderline tumors of the ovary treated at The Norwegian Radium Hospital 1970–1982: A review of clinicopatholo- gical features and treatment modalities. Submitted 1991Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friedlander M.L., Russel P., Taylor I.W., Hedley D.W. Tattersall M.H.N.: Flow cytometric analysis of cellular DNA content as an adjunct to the diagnosis of ovarian tumours of borderline malignancy. Path.: 301–306,1984Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Erhardt K., Auer G., Björkholm E. et al.: Prognostic significance of nuclear DNA content in serous ovarian. Cancer Research 44: 2198–2202,1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dietel M., Arps H., Rohlff A., Bodecker R., Niendorf A.: Nuclear DNA content of borderline tumors of the ovary: correlation with histology and significance for prognosis. Vir- chows Arch. (Pathol. Anat.) 409: 829–836,1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Tropé
  • J. Kærn
  • G. Kristensen
  • V. Abeler
  • E. O. Pettersen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations