Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2020; 41(05): 663-669
DOI: 10.4103/ijmpo.ijmpo_199_19
Original Article

Ovarian Serous Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study of Clinicopathological Findings and Postchemotherapy Changes

Navatha Vangala
Department of Medical Oncology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
,
Shantveer G Uppin
Department of Medical Oncology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
,
Megha S Uppin
Department of Medical Oncology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
,
Tara Roshni Paul
Department of Medical Oncology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
,
G Sadashivudu
Department of Medical Oncology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: Ovarian carcinoma represents 30% of all cancers of the female genital tract, of which high-grade serous carcinomas (HGSCs) are predominant, accounting for 70%. Aims and Objectives: To study the clinicopathological findings and to analyze the postchemotherapy changes in tumors treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Materials and Methods: All cases diagnosed as ovarian serous carcinoma between 2015 and 2017 at our institute were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical and gross findings were collected, microscopic findings were reviewed, and tumor grade was reassessed as per the World Health Organization 2014 criteria. Chemotherapy response score (CRS) was assessed in cases which received prior chemotherapy. Results: Among malignant ovarian tumors, serous carcinoma was the most common, accounting to 38 cases (44.7%). Of these, six were low-grade serous carcinoma and 32 were HGSC. Among HGSC, six (18.75%) cases showed serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma. Among 18 (47.4%) cases with prior NACT, CRS-1 was seen in six cases, CRS-2 in seven cases, and CRS-3 in five cases. Cancer antigen (CA)-125 levels were markedly raised in all cases. In six cases postchemotherapy, CA-125 levels were below normal with a CRS-2–3. Omental deposits were seen in 15 (39.47%) cases and showed lesser response to prior NACT compared to tumor in the ovary. Conclusion: HGSC is the most common ovarian serous carcinoma. There is correlation between the biochemical and morphological response to chemotherapy in our study. Pathologists should be well aware of postchemotherapy morphological changes in ovarian serous carcinoma.

Keywords

Ovarian serous carcinoma - postchemotherapy changes - serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma


Publication History

Received: 16 September 2019

Accepted: 09 June 2020

Article published online:
17 May 2021

© 2020. Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010; 127: 2893-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Prat J. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2014; 124: 1-5
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Boehm S, Said I, Faruqi A, Gilks CB, Singh N. Development of a response scoring system to quantify the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer response scoring study. Modern Pathol 2014; 27: 276A
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Nishida N, Murakami F, Higaki K. Detection of serous precursor lesions in resected fallopian tubes from patients with benign diseases and a relatively low risk for ovarian cancer. Pathol Int 2016; 66: 337-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zeppernick F, Meinhold-Heerlein I, Shih IE. Precursors of ovarian cancer in the fallopian tube: Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma-An update. J Obstet Gynaecol Re 2015; 41: 6-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kobayashi H, Iwai K, Niiro E, Morioka S, Yamada Y, Ogawa K. et al. The conceptual advances of carcinogenic sequence model in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Biomed Rep 2017; 7: 209-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Köbel M, Kalloger SE, Huntsman DG, Santos JL, Swenerton KD, Seidman JD. et al. Differences in tumor type in low-stage versus high-stage ovarian carcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2010; 29: 203-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vang R, Shih IeM, Kurman RJ. Ovarian low-grade and high-grade serous carcinoma: Pathogenesis, clinicopathologic and molecular biologic features, and diagnostic problems. Adv Anat Pathol 2009; 16: 267-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Collaborative Group on Epidemiological Studies of Ovarian Cancer. Beral V, Doll R, Hermon C, Peto R, Reeves G. Ovarian cancer and oral contraceptives: Collaborative reanalysis of data from 45 epidemiological studies including 23,257 women with ovarian cancer and 87,303 controls. Lancet 2008; 371: 303-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cibula D, Widschwendter M, Májek O, Dusek L. Tubal ligation and the risk of ovarian cancer: Review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17: 55-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hunn J, Rodriguez GC. Ovarian cancer: Etiology, risk factors, and epidemiology. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2012; 55: 3-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pelucchi C, Galeone C, Talamini R, Bosetti C, Montella M, Negri E. et al. Lifetime ovulatory cycles and ovarian cancer risk in two Italian case-control studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196: 83-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sueblinvong T, Carney ME. Current understanding of risk factors for ovarian cancer. Curr Treat Option On 2009; 10: 67-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Goff BA, Mandel LS, Melancon CH, Muntz HG. Frequency of symptoms of ovarian cancer in women presenting to primary care clinics. JAMA 2004; 291: 2705-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gilbert L, Basso O, Sampalis J, Karp I, Martins C, Feng J. et al. Assessment of symptomatic women for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer: Results from the prospective DOvE pilot project. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 285-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zivanovic O, Sima CS, Iasonos A, Bell-McGuinn KM, Sabbatini PJ, Leitao MM. et al. Exploratory analysis of serum CA-125 response to surgery and the risk of relapse in patients with FIGO stage IIIC ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 115: 209-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 George SH, Garcia R, Slomovitz BM. Ovarian cancer: The fallopian tube as the site of origin and opportunities for prevention. Front Oncol 2016; 6: 108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wang J, Wu H, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Li X, Zhao Q. et al. High-grade serous ovarian and fallopian tube carcinomas with similar clinicopathological characteristics might originate from serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma in Chinese women. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2017; 10: 8222-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Piek JM, van Diest PJ, Zweemer RP, Jansen JW, Poort-Keesom RJ, Menko FH. et al. Dysplastic changes in prophylactically removed fallopian tubes of women predisposed to developing ovarian cancer. J Pathol 2001; 195: 451-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Powell CB, Chen LM, McLennan J, Crawford B, Zaloudek C, Rabban JT. et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in BRCA mutation carriers: Experience with a consecutive series of 111 patients using a standardized surgical-pathological protocol. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21: 846-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Reitsma W, De Bock GH, Oosterwijk JC, Bart J, Hollema H, Mourits MJ. Support of the ‘fallopian tube hypothesis’ in a prospective series of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy specimens. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 132-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 George SH, Greenaway J, Milea A, Clary V, Shaw S, Sharma M. et al. Identification of abrogated pathways in fallopian tube epithelium from BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Pathol 2011; 225: 106-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Tone AA, Virtanen C, Shaw P, Brown TJ. Prolonged postovulatory pro-inflammatory signaling in the fallopian tube epithelium may be mediated through a BRCA1/DAB2 axis. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 4334-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Malmberg K, Klynning C, Flöter-Rådestad A, Carlson JW. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, chronic fallopian tube injury, and serous carcinoma development. Virchows Arch 2016; 468: 707-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tang S, Onuma K, Deb P, Wang E, Lytwyn A, Sur M, Daya D. Frequency of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma in various gynecologic malignancies: A study of 300 consecutive cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2012; 31: 103-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mittal N, Srinivasan R, Gupta N, Rajwanshi A, Nijhawan R, Gautam U. et al. Secretory cell outgrowths, p53 signatures, and serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma in the fallopian tubes of patients with sporadic pelvic serous carcinoma. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2016; 59: 481-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chen F, Gaitskell K, Garcia MJ, Albukhari A, Tsaltas J, Ahmed AA. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinomas associated with high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas: A systematic review. BJOG 2017; 124: 872-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schneider S, Heikaus S, Harter P, Heitz F, Grimm C, Ataseven B. et al. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma associated with extraovarian metastases. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27: 444-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Corzo C, Iniesta MD, Patrono MG, Lu KH, Ramirez PT. Role of fallopian tubes in the development of ovarian cancer. J Minim Invas Gyn 2017; 24: 230-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Perets R, Wyant GA, Muto KW, Bijron JG, Poole BB, Chin KT. et al. Transformation of the fallopian tube secretory epithelium leads to high- grade serous ovarian cancer in BRCA; Tp53; PTEN models. Cancer Cell 2013; 24: 751-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kaur KK, Allahbadia G, Singh M. An update on high grade serous ovarian carcinoma-A comprehensive review. Acta Sci Cancer Biol 2019; 3: 37-49
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Lisio MA, Fu L, Goyeneche A, Gao ZH, Telleria C. High-grade serous ovarian cancer: Basic sciences, clinical and therapeutic standpoints. Int J Mol Sci 2019; 20: :952
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Vang R, Shih IeM, Kurman RJ. Fallopian tube precursors of ovarian low- and high-grade serous neoplasms. Histopathology 2013; 62: 44-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Koc N, Ayas S, Arinkan SA. Comparison of the classical method and SEE-FIM protocol in detecting microscopic lesions in fallopian tubes with gynecological lesions. J Pathol Transl Med 2018; 52: 21-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hynninen J, Lavonius M, Oksa S, Grénman S, Carpén O, Auranen A. Is perioperative visual estimation of intra-abdominal tumor spread reliable in ovarian cancer surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy?. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 128: 229-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ledermann JA, Raja FA, Fotopoulou C, Gonzalez-Martin A, Colombo N, Sessa C. et al. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2013; 24 Suppl 6: vi24-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Saha A, Varughese M, Gallagher CJ, Orphanos G, Wilson P, Oram D. et al. Primary chemotherapy for inoperable ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer with or without delayed debulking surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012; 22: 566-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Pelissier A, Bonneau C, Chéreau E, de La Motte Rouge T, Fourchotte V, Daraï E. et al. CA125 kinetic parameters predict optimal cytoreduction in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 135: 542-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Rustin GJ, Vergote I, Eisenhauer E, Pujade-Lauraine E, Quinn M, Thigpen T. et al. Definitions for response and progression in ovarian cancer clinical trials incorporating RECIST 1.1 and CA 125 agreed by the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG). Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21: 419-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 McCluggage WG, Judge MJ, Clarke BA, Davidson B, Gilks CB, Hollema H. et al. Data set for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: Recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Mod Pathol 2015; 28: 1101-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Leinster DA, Kulbe H, Everitt G, Thompson R, Perretti M, Gavins FNE. et al. The peritoneal tumor microenvironment of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. J Pathol 2012; 227: 136-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Gourley C, McCavigan A, Perren T, Paul J, Michie CO, Churchman M. et al. Molecular subgroup of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) as a predictor of outcome following bevacizumab. J Clin Oncol 2014; 5: 32
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Riester M, Wei W, Waldron L, Culhane AC, Trippa L, Oliva E. Risk prediction for late-stage ovarian cancer by metaanalysis of 1525 patient samples. J Natl Cancer I 2014; 106: Dju048 et al. pii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar