This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: theoncologist.2008-0263v1 14/6/591    most recent eLetters: Submit a response to this article Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Kane, A. Articles by Morice, P. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kane, A. Articles by Morice, P.

Gynecologic Oncology

Prognostic Factors in Patients with Ovarian Serous Low Malignant Potential (Borderline) Tumors with Peritoneal Implants

Departments of ^aGynecologic Surgery, ^bBiostatistics, ^cOncology, ^dRadiotherapy, and ^ePathology and ^fUniversity Paris Sud, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France

Key Words. Borderline tumor • Ovary • Micropapillary pattern • Invasive implants • Noninvasive implants • Peritoneal implants

Correspondence: Philippe Morice, M.D., Ph.D., Institut Gustave Roussy, 39 Rue Camille Desmoulins, 94805 Villejuif, France. Telephone: 33-1-42-11-44-39; Fax: 33-1-42-11-52-13; e mail: morice{at}igr.fr

Received December 5, 2008; accepted for publication February 23, 2009; first published online in THE ONCOLOGIST Express on June 1, 2009.

Disclosures:

Aminata Kane: None; Catherine Uzan: None; Annie Rey: None; Sebastien Gouy: None; Sophie Camatte: None; Patricia Pautier: None; Catherine Lhommé: None; Christrine Haie-Meder: None; Pierre Duvillard: None; Philippe Morice: None.

The content of this article has been reviewed by independent peer reviewers to ensure that it is balanced, objective, and free from commercial bias. No financial relationships relevant to the content of this article have been disclosed by the authors or independent peer reviewers.

Background. The objective of this study was to determine prognostic factors in a large series of patients with stage II or III serous low malignant potential ovarian tumor (LMPOT) and peritoneal implants.

Methods. Patients with a serous LMPOT and peritoneal implants treated at or referred to our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The slides of ovarian tumors and peritoneal implants were reviewed by the same pathologist.

Results. From 1969 to 2006, 168 patients were reviewed, 21 of whom had invasive implants. Tumors exhibited a micropapillary pattern in 56 patients. Adjuvant treatment had been administered to 61 patients. The median duration of follow-up was 57 months (range, 1–437). Forty-four patients had relapsed and 10 patients had died. The 5-year overall survival rate was 98%. Among patients with noninvasive and invasive implants, 8% and 10%, respectively, had relapsed at 5 years in the form of invasive disease (p = .08). In a multivariate analysis, the use of conservative treatment was the only prognostic factor.

Interpretation. The prognosis of serous LMPOT with peritoneal implants remains good. The strongest prognostic factor in patients with an advanced-stage borderline tumor is the use of conservative surgery. In this series, a micropapillary pattern and implant subtype (invasive versus noninvasive) were not prognostic factors.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Uzan, A. Kane, A. Rey, S. Gouy, P. Duvillard, and P. Morice Outcomes after conservative treatment of advanced-stage serous borderline tumors of the ovary Ann. Onc., July 16, 2009; (2009) mdp267v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]