Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Cancer 1/2020

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research article

Staging procedures fail to benefit women with borderline ovarian tumours who want to preserve fertility: a retrospective analysis of 448 cases

verfasst von: Na Li, Jinhai Gou, Lin Li, Xiu Ming, Ting Wenyi Hu, Zhengyu Li

Erschienen in: BMC Cancer | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the effect of clinicopathologic factors on the prognosis and fertility outcomes of BOT patients.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of BOT patients who underwent surgical procedures in West China Second University Hospital from 2008 to 2015. The DFS outcomes, potential prognostic factors and fertility outcomes were evaluated.

Results

Four hundred forty-eight patients were included; 52 recurrences were observed. Ninety-two patients undergoing FSS achieved pregnancy. No significant differences in fertility outcomes were found between the staging and unstaged surgery groups. Staging surgery was not an independent prognostic factor for DFS. Laparoscopy resulted in better prognosis than laparotomy in patients with stage I tumours and a desire for fertility preservation.

Conclusion

Patients with BOT fail to benefit from surgical staging. Laparoscopy is recommended for patients with stage I disease who desire to preserve fertility. Physicians should pay more attention to risk of recurrence in patients who want to preserve fertility.
Hinweise
Na Li and Jinhai Gou contributed equally to this work.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12885-020-07262-w.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
BOT
Borderline ovarian tumour
DFS
Disease-free survival
FIGO
Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics
FSS
Fertility-sparing surgery
GOG
Gynaecologic Oncology Group
HR
Hazard ratios
OS
Overall survival
RFS
Recurrence-free survival
SPSS
Statistical Package for Social Sciences
WHO
World Health Organization

Background

Borderline ovarian tumour (BOT) is a unique type of tumour with a better prognosis than malignant ovarian tumours. BOT usually occurs in women 10 years younger than those with epithelial ovarian cancer. The majority of the women with BOT are diagnosed in earlier stages, reported about 75% diagnosed at stage I [1, 2]. It was reported that in BOT specimens, the significant marker for malignant tumours, Ki67 Labeling Index value, ranged from 2 to 40% [3].
The clinical management of BOT has evolved since our understanding of its biological behaviour has increased over the latest two decades. The primary treatment for BOT is surgical removal of the tumour, while fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) is emphasized in women who desire to preserve their fertility. The role of comprehensive surgical staging in the treatment of BOT is still controversial. Due to that peritoneal implants are a significant prognostic index and the most common sites of implants include the omentum and peritoneal surfaces, comprehensive surgical staging including resection of the primary borderline tumour, abdominal/pelvic cytologic washings, omentectomy, and peritoneal biopsies is recommended. However, it is reported that routine lymphadenectomy is not recommended [4, 5]. In general, comprehensive surgical staging, adequate tissue sampling, and adequate follow-up period are essential aspects for optimal clinical management of BOT [2]. It is still inconsistent of the benefits of staging surgery, while a recent systematic literature review showed that staging surgery, including hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for BOT, is not supported based on present studies [68]. As the ratio of uterine or nodal metastasis is low in early-stage BOT, the risk of surgical complications and the benefits of surgical staging must be balanced carefully.
To evaluate the effect of clinicopathologic factors on the prognosis and fertility outcomes of BOT patients, this study was performed.

Methods

Clinical data of BOT patients were collected retrospectively in West China Second University Hospital between January 2008 and December 2015. Patients with a pathological diagnosis of BOT who underwent surgery were enrolled in this study. The patients with concurrent ovarian cancer, other malignant reproductive tumours, or incomplete data were excluded. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of West China Second University Hospital. Data were collected from medical records, telephone interview and out-patient review. Essential information included data of age, lesion location, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, histological subtype, surgical information, chemotherapy information, and follow-up information. Although the FIGO ovarian staging classification was revised on 1 January 2014, we used the previous staging (2009) classification guideline for consistency [9]. In addition, histological type was determined according to the World Health Organization (WHO) system (2003). Pathological specimens were evaluated by two independent pathologists experienced in gynaecologic pathology. The tumours were divided into four histological types: serous, mucinous, endometrioid, and other types. Micropapillary lesions were defined as serous tumours with complex micropapillary structures [10]. Microinvasion lesions were defined as stromal invasion limited in an area of less than 10 mm2 [10]. Surgical mentioned in this study included FSS, which was performed to conserve the uterus and at least one ovary, and radical resection, which was performed to remove the uterus and bilateral salpingo-oophoron [11]. Moreover, several surgery types need to be defined: staging, and non-staging surgery. Staging was defined as surgery including peritoneal washing and/or biopsies, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (sampling or systematic), and omentectomy. Other surgery was defined as non-staging surgery [12]. Four types of FSSs are mentioned as follows: unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, unilateral cystectomy, bilateral cystectomy, and unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy plus contralateral cystectomy. The latter three surgeries were defined as cystectomy. Patients were followed-up once every 3 months for the first 2 years, every 6 months for 3–5 years after the surgery, and once per year thereafter. Gynaecological examination, abdominal ultrasonography, and serum tumour marker evaluation, especially ca-125, were performed in each follow-up. Considering the favourable prognosis, disease-free survival (DFS, defined as the duration from the primary surgery to the first recurrence or the last follow-up) was applied to assess oncological outcomes, rather than over-all survival (OS).
DFS, recurrence rate, and pregnancy rate were selected as the primary outcomes in this study. All statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical software (version 20.0). The Student’s t-test was used for statistical analysis of unpaired data. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis were used to determine the factors affecting recurrence. A P-Value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 448 patients with BOT were enrolled in this study. The demographics and clinicopathological characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Demographics of patients with borderline ovarian tumors
 
Non-staging surgery
Staging surgery
P Value
Total
330
118
 
Age (y, mean ± Std)
36.75 ± 14.35
38.03 ± 12.49
0.363
Time of operation(h, mean)
127.50
255.00
< 0.001
Blood Loss (ml, median)
80
400
< 0.001
Length of stay (d, median)
6
8
< 0.001
FIGO Stage
 I
287 (87%)
60 (50.8%)
< 0.001
 II
8 (2.40%)
12 (10.2%)
 
 III
32 (9.7%)
42 (35.6%)
 
 IV
3 (0.9%)
4 (3.4%)
 
Histology
  
0.038
 Serous
177 (53.6%)
81 (68.6%)
 
 Mucinous
119 (36.1%)
31 (26.3%)
 
 Endometrioid
7 (2.1%)
1 (0.8%)
 
 Serous and Mucinous
27 (8.2%)
5 (4.2%)
 
Lesion lateral
  
< 0.001
 Unilateral
277 (83.9%)
75 (63.6%)
 
 Bilateral
53 (16.1%)
43 (36.4%)
 
Micropapillary
 Yes
45 (13.6%)
36 (30.5%)
< 0.001
 No
285 (86.4%)
82 (69.5%)
 
Microinvasion
  
< 0.001
 Yes
31 (9.4%)
57 (48.3%)
 
 No
299 (90.6%)
61 (51.7%)
 
Carcinogenesis
 Yes
14 (4.2%)
11 (9.3%)
0.058
 No
316 (95.8%)
107 (90.7%)
 
Surgical Approach
  
< 0.001
 Laparotomy
192 (58.2%)
106 (89.8%)
 
 Laparoscopy
138 (41.8%)
12 (10.2%)
 
Ascites/Cytologic washings
  
0.012
 Positive
14 (4.2%)
13 (11.0%)
 
 Negative
316 (95.8%)
105 (89.0%)
 
Lymph node involvement
  
NA
 Yes
NA
21 (18.6%)
 
 No
NA
92 (81.4%)
 
Appendix metastasis
 Yes
6 (54.5%)
5 (45.5%)
0.05
 No
113 (81.3%)
26 (18.7%)
 
Omentum metastasis
  
NA
 Yes
NA
27 (23.1%)
 
 No
NA
90 (76.9%)
 
Adjuvant chemotherapy
  
< 0.001
 Yes
54 (16.4%)
67 (56.8%)
 
 No
276 (83.6%)
51 (43.2%)
 
Recurrence
  
0.007
 Yes
30 (9.1%)
22 (18.6%)
 
 No
300 (90.9%)
96 (81.4%)
 
Fertility-sparing surgery
  
< 0.001
 Yes
240 (72.7%)
30 (25.4%)
 
 No
90 (27.3%)
88 (74.6%)
 
Achieving pregnancy
  
0.552
 Yes
79 (35.7%)
13 (41.9%)
 
 No
142 (64.3%)
18 (58.1%)
 
Data were recorded as number (%), mean (±SD), or median (range)
Abbreviations: y Years, h Hours, d Days
The median age at diagnosis was 37.1 years (range: 11–82 years). The majority of the patients were in FIGO stage I (n = 347, 77.46%), with a few cases of stage II (n = 20, 4.46%), stage III (n = 74, 16.52%), and stage IV (n = 7, 1.56%). The most common pathological type of BOT was serous (n = 258, 57.59%), followed by mucinous (n = 150, 33.48%), serous/mucinous (n = 32, 7.14%), and endometrioid (n = 8, 1.79%). Notably, most patients had unilateral lesions (n = 352, 78.57%), whereas 96 (21.43%) patients had bilateral lesions. Among the patients enrolled, 81 (18.08%) had micropapillary lesions, 88 (19.64%) had microinvasion lesions, and 25 (5.58%) had carcinogenesis lesions.
Regarding surgical approach, 298 patients (66.52%) underwent laparotomy and 150 patients (33.48%) underwent laparoscopy; 118 patients (26.34%) underwent staging surgery, whereas the rest underwent non-staging surgery (330 patients, 73.66%). Abdominal/pelvic washings or ascites were collected prior to surgery for all patients, and positive involvement was identified in 27 patients (6.03%). Lymph node metastasis was detected in 21 of 113 patients (18.58%) who underwent lymphadenectomy. Appendix metastases were detected in 11 of 150 patients (7.33%) who underwent appendectomy. Omentum metastases were detected in 27 of 117 patients (23.08%) who underwent omentectomy. A total of 121 patients (27.01%) received adjuvant chemotherapy for lymph node metastasis, positive abdominal/pelvic washings, invasive implants, and/or other high-risk indicators.

Oncological outcomes of BOT patients

We carried out a survival analysis. The median follow-up for this study was 113 (range: 14–166) months. At the last follow-up, 42 (11.6%) patients experienced recurrence, with a mean recurrence interval of 80.2 months, and 4 (0.9%) disease-specific deaths were observed. The recurrence rate in patients who underwent non-staging surgery (30/330, 9.09%) was lower than that in those underwent staging surgery (22/118, 18.64%), with the difference being statistically significant (P < 0.01). The results of univariate and multivariate analyses of DFS in all patients are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Univariate and multivariate analysis of DFS
 
Univariate
P value
Multivariate
P value
HR
95% confidence interval
HR
95% confidence interval
FIGO Stage
 I
1
     
 ≧II
7.204
4.093–12.680
0.000
6.544
2.137–20.041
0.001
Histology
 Serous
1
    
0.528
 Mucinous
0.353
0.171–0.726
0.005
1.215
0.275–5.375
0.797
 Others
0.286
0.069–1.183
0.084
0.632
0.130–3.066
0.569
Lesion lateral
 Unilateral
1
     
 Bilateral
2.554
1.460–4.469
0.001
1.076
0.526–2.202
0.840
Micropapillary
 Yes
1.557
0.831–2.917
0.167
   
 No
1
     
Microinvasion
 Yes
5.092
2.954–8.779
0.000
0.478
0.181–1.261
0.136
 No
1
     
Carcinogenesis
 Yes
1.049
0.327–3.366
0.936
  
NA
 No
1
     
Staging surgery
 Yes
2.191
1.263–3.801
0.005
0.810
0.393–1.669
0.567
 No
1
     
Adjuvant chemotherapy
 Yes
5.281
3.002–9.289
0.000
2.031
0.913–4.519
0.083
 No
1
     
Ascites/Pelvic washings
 Positive
5.442
2.850–10.391
0.000
3.259
1.202–8.835
0.020
 Negative
1
     
Surgical Approach
 Laparotomy
1
     
 Laparoscopy
0.292
0.132–0.647
0.002
0.319
0.128–0.793
0.014
CA-125
 Normal
1
     
 Elevated
2.201
1.224–3.960
0.008
0.825
0.422–1.611
0.572
Fertility sparing surgery
 No
1
     
 Yes
1.055
0.063–1.845
0.851
  
NA
Appendectomy
 No
1
     
 Yes
0.394
0.192–0.808
0.011
  
NA
Invasive implants
 No
1
     
 Yes
4.105
2.222–7.583
0.000
0.566
0.208–1.539
0.265
According to the univariate analysis, patients who underwent staging surgery had shorter DFS than those who underwent non-staging surgery. In addition, laparoscopy was strongly associated with improved DFS (HR = 0.292, 95% CI: 0.132–0.647, P = 0.002) compared to laparotomy. Other factors found to be associated with DFS were FIGO stage, histology, lesion location, microinvasion, adjuvant chemotherapy, ascites/pelvic washings, cancer antigen (CA)-125 level, appendectomy, and invasive implants (all P < 0.01). Micropapillary and carcinogenic lesions were not associated with DFS (P > 0.05).
Although several factors were found to be associated with DFS by univariate analysis, only FIGO stage (OR: 6.544, 95% CI: 2.137–20.041), positive ascites/pelvic washings (OR: 3.259, 95% CI: 1.202–8.835), and surgical approach (OR: 0.319, 95% CI: 0.128–0.793) were significantly associated with DFS (P < 0.001, P = 0.014, P = 0.043, respectively) as per multivariate analysis; complete staging surgery was not associated with DFS (P = 0.600) as per multivariate analysis. There was no difference in DFS between patients who underwent FSS and radical surgery according to univariate and multivariate analyses.
Subgroup analysis showed that in patients who underwent staging surgery, there was no difference in DFS between those who underwent laparotomy or laparoscopy (P = 0.349). Among patients who underwent non-staging surgery, the DFS was longer for patients who underwent laparoscopy than for those who underwent laparotomy (P = 0.011; Supplementary Table 1).

Oncological outcomes in patients with BOT after FSS

Among the patients enrolled, 270 patients underwent FSS. Of these, 32 patients (11.8%) experienced recurrence. To explore the potential risk factors associated with improved DFS in patients who underwent FSS, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed (Table 3).
Table 3
Univariate and multivariate analysis of DFS in fertility desiring patients after fertility-sparing surgery
 
Univariate
P Value
Multivariate
P Value
OR
95% confidence interval
OR
95%
confidence interval
FIGO Stage
 I
1
     
 ≧II
21.061
9.662–45.909
0.000
11.586
4.535–29.602
0.000
Histology
 Serous
1
 
0.010
  
0.155
 Mucinous
0.196
0.068–0.654
0.003
  
0.189
 Others
0.000
 
0.975
  
NA
Lesion lateral
 Unilateral
1
     
 Bilateral
5.491
2.570–11.73
0.000
2.581
1.061–6.283
0.037
Micropapillary
 Yes
1.976
0.840–4.649
0.119
  
NA
 No
1
     
Microinvasion
 Yes
14.644
6.940–30.903
0.000
  
0.955
 No
1
     
Carcinogenesis
 Yes
0.609
0.083–4.483
0.626
  
NA
 No
1
     
Staging surgery
 Yes
4.290
1.979–9.298
0.000
  
0.358
 No
1
     
Adjuvant chemotherapy
 Yes
7.797
3.648–16.664
0.000
  
0.391
 No
1
     
Ascites/Pelivic washings
 Positive
13.350
5.612–31.770
0.000
  
0.888
 Negative
1
     
Surgical Approach
 Laparotomy
1
     
 Laparoscopy
0.332
0.135–0.820
0.017
0.367
0.148–0.913
0.031
CA-125
 Normal
1
     
 Elevated
1.649
0.748–3.632
0.215
  
NA
Fertility sparing surgery
 Cystectomy-included
1
     
 Adnexectomy
0.382
0.168–0.867
0.021
0.367
0.148–0.913
0.014
Appendectomy
 No
1
     
 Yes
0.240
0.083–0.692
0.008
  
0.189
Invasive implants
 No
1
     
 Yes
14.289
6.400–31.902
0.000
4.832
1.663–14.037
0.004
Univariate analysis with patients who underwent FSS showed that patients who underwent staging surgery had shorter DFS than those who underwent non-staging procedures (OR: 4.290, 95% CI: 1.979–9.298, P < 0.001). DFS was better among patients who underwent laparoscopy (OR: 0.332, 95% CI: 0.135–0.820, P = 0.017) than among those who underwent laparotomy. In addition, patients who underwent salpingo-oophorectomy had longer DFS than those who underwent a cystectomy procedure (OR: 0.230, 95% CI: 0.168–0.867, P = 0.021). Other factors were also associated with DFS in patients who underwent FSS, including FIGO stage, histology, lesion location, microinvasion, adjuvant chemotherapy, positive ascites/pelvic washings, appendectomy, and invasive implants (P < 0.05).
In multivariate analysis, there was no difference in DFS between patients who underwent staging and non-staging surgery (P = 0.358). There was no difference in DFS between patients with different histological types. Early FIGO stage (OR: 11.586, 95% CI: 4.535–29.602), unilateral lesions (OR: 2.581, 95% CI: 1.061–6.283), laparoscopy (OR: 0.367, 95% CI: 0.148–0.913), salpingo-oophorectomy (OR: 0.367, 95% CI: 0.148–0.913), and no invasive implants (OR: 4.832, 95% CI: 1.663–14.037) were independent factors for improved DFS (P < 0.05).

Reproductive outcomes in patients with BOT after FFS

At the last follow-up, of the 270 patients who underwent FSS, 252 patients had attempted to conceive and 92 achieved pregnancy. The correlation between clinicopathological characteristics and reproductive outcome is shown in Table 4. The pregnancy rate in patients aged < 35 years was higher than those aged ≧35, at a statistically significant (P < 0.001) level. Of the 30 patients who underwent staging surgery, 13 patients (43.33%) succeeded in conceiving, whereas 79 of 203 patients (38.92%) who underwent non-staging surgery succeeded in conceiving, but these differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There was no difference between patients who underwent laparotomy or laparoscopy. Similarly, among patients who underwent salpingo-oophorectomy or cystectomy, there was no difference in the pregnancy rates (P > 0.05).
Table 4
Correlation between pregnant outcomes and clinicopathological indexes in patients after fertility-sparing surgery
 
Fertility outcome
P value
No
(n,%)
Yes
(n,%)
Staging surgery
 No
124 (87.9)
79 (85.9)
0.691
 Yes
17 (12.1)
13 (14.1)
 
Surgical approach
 Laparoscopy
65 (46.1)
37 (40.2)
0.419
 Laparotomy
76 (53.9)
55 (59.8)
 
Surgical procedure
 Cystectomy
76 (53.9)
41 (44.6)
0.181
 Salpingo-oophorectomy
65 (46.1)
51 (55.4)
 
Adjuvant chemotherapy
 No
110 (78.0)
77 (83.7)
0.316
 Yes
31 (22.0)
15 (16.3)
 
FIGO Stage
 I
121 (85.8)
84 (91.3)
0.225
 ≧II
20 (14.2)
8 (8.7)
 
Histology
 Serous
79 (56.0)
39 (42.4)
0.08
 Mucinous
47 (33.3)
44 (47.8)
 
 Others
15 (10.6)
9 (9.8)
 
Lesion lateral
 Unilateral
122 (86.5)
82 (89.1)
0.686
 Bilateral
19 (13.5)
10 (10.9)
 
Micropapillary
 No
23 (16.3)
12 (13.0)
0.576
 Yes
118 (83.7)
80 (87.0)
 
Microinvasion
 No
126 (89.4)
85 (92.4)
0.499
 Yes
15 (10.6)
7 (7.6)
 
Carcinogenesis
 No
134 (95.0)
86 (93.5)
0.771
 Yes
7 (5.0)
6 (6.5)
 
Ascites/Pelvic washings
 Positive
7 (5.0)
3 (3.3)
0.744
 Negative
134 (95.0)
89 (96.7)
 
CA-125
 Normal
82 (65.6)
60 (69.8)
0.553
 Elevated
43 (34.4)
26 (30.2)
 
Invasive implants
 No
132 (93.6)
88 (95.7)
0.574
 Yes
9 (6.4)
4 (4.3)
 
Age
 < 35
107 (75.9)
92 (100)
0.000
 ≧35
34 (24.1)
0
 

Discussion

In the present study, we performed a retrospective analysis of 448 patients with BOT in a single centre in China. BOTs are ovarian neoplasms with characteristics of benign or malignant tumours, frequently occurring in young women and associated with favourable prognosis. Within the past two decades, we have begun to understand the biological behaviour of BOTs; however, the optimal therapy for this disease is still controversial. Numerous studies have focused on the oncological and reproductive outcomes of BOT. In the literature, the primary points of discussion regarding BOT include the prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) or DFS, necessity of staging surgery, application of minimally invasive approaches, and outcome of conservative surgery.
Complete staging surgery generally includes resection of the primary borderline tumour (cystectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy), cytologic washings, omentectomy, peritoneal biopsies, and routine lymphadenectomy. Unlike in ovarian cancer, previous studies have shown that the prognosis of patients with BOT is generally favourable, with very low mortality [13, 14]. A Turkish Gynaecologic Oncology Group (GOG) study showed that the five-year survival rate of patients with BOT was 100%, and the median survival time was 120 months [15]. Therefore, DFS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were defined as the main oncological outcomes. In the present study, complete staging surgery was performed in 26.3% of the patients. Although univariate analysis showed that patients who underwent staging surgery had shorter DFS than those who underwent non-staging surgery, no significant difference was found in the DFS between different surgical approaches as per multivariate analysis. These results were similar to those of previous studies [2, 12, 1517]. The Turkish GOG study showed that comprehensive surgical staging did not lead to any difference in survival [15]. A retrospective multicentre study showed that there were no differences in the five-year RFS and OS between patients who did and did not undergo complete surgical staging [18]. Another multicentre study showed that surgical staging were not beneficial in the management of BOT [12]. A third multicentre study from Turkey that focused on mucinous BOT showed that radical surgery, omentectomy, appendectomy, and lymphadenectomy were not independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival and OS [17].
Regarding the correlation between lymphadenectomy and DFS, lymph node involvement does not appear to be a prognostic factor [19, 20]. Univariate analysis by Matsuo et al. showed that surgical staging patterns for hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy were not associated with cause-specific survival (P = 0.19) [2]. A previous study by Qian et al. showed that there were no significant differences between groups with or without lymphatic node involvement (P = 0.778), and between patients who had more or fewer than 10 nodes removed (P = 0.549) [16].
BOT occurs in women of all ages, with a high proportion in the reproductive age [21]. In the present study, the median age at diagnosis was 37.1 years. Therefore, a conservative surgical approach (FSS) was the preferred choice for patients who desired to preserve their fertility. However, the balance between oncological and reproductive outcomes should be assessed adequately; approximately 12–36% of the patients with BOT who undergo FSS experience recurrence [21], and the most common site of recurrence is the residual ovary [2124]. Previous studies have shown that the recurrence rate of BOT in patients who underwent FSS was markedly higher than that in patients who underwent radical surgeries (21.4% vs. 6.3%, P < 0.05) [10, 25]. Furthermore, a large proportion of patients who underwent FSS experienced invasive recurrence [14]. In a recent retrospective study, patients with FSS developed more relapse than patients with radical surgeries [26]. In the multivariate analyses, fertility preservation and micropapillary pattern were independently associated with adverse disease-free survival (P = 0.001, 0.03 and 0.026, respectively) [26]. Regarding surgical patterns, a meta-analysis showed that unilateral cystectomy is significantly associated with high recurrence rates [11]. However, another study reported that there was no statistically significant difference between patients who underwent cystectomy or unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy [27]. A recent study involving 6295 patients showed that FSS was associated with worse DFS in patients aged ≥50 years than in those aged < 50 years [28]. Another study showed that surgical procedure (conservative vs. radical) was not an independent prognostic factor for DFS or OS [12].
In the present study, both univariate and multivariate analyses results showed no significant difference in the DFS between patients who underwent FSS and those who did not (P > 0.05). In patients who underwent FSS, there was no significant difference in DFS between those who underwent staging and those who did not (P > 0.05), whereas a significant difference was observed between those who underwent laparoscopy and laparotomy (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in the reproductive rates of those who underwent staging surgery or a different surgical approach. Therefore, the balance between oncological and reproductive outcomes in patients of reproductive age should be considered before performing FSS.
The standard treatment for BOT is surgery. Since most patients are of childbearing age, surgeons should consider using a minimally invasive procedure. Laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over open surgery in the management of gynaecologic diseases, including fewer peri-operative complications and superior cosmetic outcomes. In this study, approximately 33.48% of the patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. As per both univariate and multivariate analyses findings, laparoscopic surgery was more positively associated with improved DFS than laparotomy (P < 0.05). Similarly, a previous study by Song et al. also showed that RFS and OS did not differ between the laparoscopy (single-port and multi-port laparoscopy) and laparotomy groups [29]. However, the potential selective bias should be noticed, which means that the characteristic of individual patients might influence the surgery approach. For those patients with smaller mass, younger ages, lower CA125 levels in pre-operative time, laparoscopy may be more favorable, usually getting a better prognosis. However, for those patients with larger mass, older ages, higher CA125 levels, or other signs suspected for malignant tumors in pre-operative time, laparotomy was possibly chosen. This bias could be solved through increasing patients enrolled, or randomized controlled trial.
In a retrospective study of 1069 patients with BOT in Japan, 49% had normal serum CA-125 levels and only 23% had serum CA-125 levels above 100 U/mL [21]. In another study of 198 patients in Singapore, the preoperative serum CA-125 levels of 77 (39%) patients were > 35 U/mL [30]. In the present study, the serum level of CA-125 was not an independent prognostic factor for patients with BOT after FSS.
Because an accurate intra-operative diagnosis is important in the management of BOT, frozen-section examination should be performed to help surgeons and patients’ families make decisions during intra-operative periods. The accuracy of frozen-section examination is lower than optimal and the availability of reliable frozen-section analysis methods in many hospitals is difficult. Previous studies have shown that the matched rate between the results of frozen-section and definitive histological examination varies from 66.67 to 88.9% [31, 32]. Therefore, it is important for surgeons to counsel patients and their families with regard to possible intra-operative indications.

Conclusions

Patients with BOT do not benefit from surgical staging procedures in terms of prognosis and fertility outcomes. Laparoscopy, rather than laparotomy, should be recommended for patients with stage I disease who wish to preserve their fertility. In addition, patients with advanced stage disease, invasive implants, and/or bilateral tumours who wish to maintain their fertility should consider the risk of recurrence before choosing FSS. Unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is an alternative method for patients with BOT to preserve their fertility.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12885-020-07262-w.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all pathologists in department of Pathology (West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, China) for the pathological diagnosis of BOT.
The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University. Due to the nature of retrospective study, no written informed consent was obtained from patients. All follow-up information were approved by telephone review or out-patient review.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Fischerova D, Zikan M, Dundr P, Cibula D. Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors. Oncologist. 2012;17:1515–33.CrossRef Fischerova D, Zikan M, Dundr P, Cibula D. Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors. Oncologist. 2012;17:1515–33.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Matsuo K, Machida H, Takiuchi T, Grubbs BH, Roman LD, Sood AK, et al. Role of hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy in the management of early-stage borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144:496–502.CrossRef Matsuo K, Machida H, Takiuchi T, Grubbs BH, Roman LD, Sood AK, et al. Role of hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy in the management of early-stage borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144:496–502.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Guadagno E, Pignatiello S, Borrelli G, Cervasio M, Della L, Bifulco G, et al. Ovarian orderline tumors, a subtype of neoplasm with controversial behavior. Role of Ki67 as a prognostic factor. Pathol Res Pract. 2019;215:152633.CrossRef Guadagno E, Pignatiello S, Borrelli G, Cervasio M, Della L, Bifulco G, et al. Ovarian orderline tumors, a subtype of neoplasm with controversial behavior. Role of Ki67 as a prognostic factor. Pathol Res Pract. 2019;215:152633.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Gershenson DM, Silva EG, Tortolero-Luna G, Levenback C, Morris M, Tornos C. Serous borderline tumors of the ovary with noninvasive peritoneal implants. Cancer. 1998;83:2157–63.CrossRef Gershenson DM, Silva EG, Tortolero-Luna G, Levenback C, Morris M, Tornos C. Serous borderline tumors of the ovary with noninvasive peritoneal implants. Cancer. 1998;83:2157–63.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Fotopoulou C, Schumacher G, Schefold JC, Denkert C, Lichtenegger W, Sehouli J. Systematic evaluation of the intraoperative tumor pattern in patients with borderline tumor of the ovary. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19:1550–5.CrossRef Fotopoulou C, Schumacher G, Schefold JC, Denkert C, Lichtenegger W, Sehouli J. Systematic evaluation of the intraoperative tumor pattern in patients with borderline tumor of the ovary. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19:1550–5.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Menczer J, Chetrit A, Sadetzki S, National Israel Ovarian Cancer G. The effect of hysterectomy on survival of patients with borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125:372–5.CrossRef Menczer J, Chetrit A, Sadetzki S, National Israel Ovarian Cancer G. The effect of hysterectomy on survival of patients with borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125:372–5.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Shazly SA, Laughlin-Tommaso SK, Dowdy SC, Famuyide AO. Staging for low malignant potential ovarian tumors: a global perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(2):153–68..e152.CrossRef Shazly SA, Laughlin-Tommaso SK, Dowdy SC, Famuyide AO. Staging for low malignant potential ovarian tumors: a global perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(2):153–68..e152.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Messalli EM, Grauso F, Balbi G, Napolitano A, Seguino E, Torella M. Borderline ovarian tumors: features and controversial aspects. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;167:86–9.CrossRef Messalli EM, Grauso F, Balbi G, Napolitano A, Seguino E, Torella M. Borderline ovarian tumors: features and controversial aspects. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;167:86–9.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Petru E, Luck HJ, Stuart G, Gaffney D, Millan D, Vergote I, et al. Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) proposals for changes of the current FIGO staging system. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;143:69–74.CrossRef Petru E, Luck HJ, Stuart G, Gaffney D, Millan D, Vergote I, et al. Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) proposals for changes of the current FIGO staging system. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;143:69–74.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Fang C, Zhao L, Chen X, Yu A, Xia L, Zhang P. The impact of clinicopathologic and surgical factors on relapse and pregnancy in young patients (</=40 years old) with borderline ovarian tumors. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1147.CrossRef Fang C, Zhao L, Chen X, Yu A, Xia L, Zhang P. The impact of clinicopathologic and surgical factors on relapse and pregnancy in young patients (</=40 years old) with borderline ovarian tumors. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1147.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Jiao X, Hu J, Zhu L. Prognostic factors for recurrence after fertility-preserving surgery in patients with borderline ovarian tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27:1833–41.CrossRef Jiao X, Hu J, Zhu L. Prognostic factors for recurrence after fertility-preserving surgery in patients with borderline ovarian tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27:1833–41.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Gokcu M, Gungorduk K, Asicioglu O, Cetinkaya N, Gungor T, Pakay G, et al. Borderline ovarian tumors: clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes - a multicenter study. J Ovarian Res. 2016;9:66.CrossRef Gokcu M, Gungorduk K, Asicioglu O, Cetinkaya N, Gungor T, Pakay G, et al. Borderline ovarian tumors: clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes - a multicenter study. J Ovarian Res. 2016;9:66.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Lou T, Yuan F, Feng Y, Wang S, Bai H, Zhang Z. The safety of fertility and ipsilateral ovary procedures for borderline ovarian tumors. Oncotarget. 2017;8:115718–29.CrossRef Lou T, Yuan F, Feng Y, Wang S, Bai H, Zhang Z. The safety of fertility and ipsilateral ovary procedures for borderline ovarian tumors. Oncotarget. 2017;8:115718–29.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Zanetta G, Rota S, Chiari S, Bonazzi C, Bratina G, Mangioni C. Behavior of borderline tumors with particular interest to persistence, recurrence, and progression to invasive carcinoma: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2658–64.CrossRef Zanetta G, Rota S, Chiari S, Bonazzi C, Bratina G, Mangioni C. Behavior of borderline tumors with particular interest to persistence, recurrence, and progression to invasive carcinoma: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2658–64.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Guvenal T, Dursun P, Hasdemir PS, Hanhan M, Guven S, Yetimalar H, et al. Effect of surgical staging on 539 patients with borderline ovarian tumors: a Turkish gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:546–50.CrossRef Guvenal T, Dursun P, Hasdemir PS, Hanhan M, Guven S, Yetimalar H, et al. Effect of surgical staging on 539 patients with borderline ovarian tumors: a Turkish gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:546–50.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Qian XQ, Hua XP, Wu JH, Shen YM, Cheng XD, Wan XY. Clinical predictors of recurrence and prognostic value of lymph node involvement in the serous borderline ovarian tumor. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28:279–84.CrossRef Qian XQ, Hua XP, Wu JH, Shen YM, Cheng XD, Wan XY. Clinical predictors of recurrence and prognostic value of lymph node involvement in the serous borderline ovarian tumor. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28:279–84.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Gungorduk K, Asicioglu O, Braicu EI, Almuheimid J, Gokulu SG, Cetinkaya N, et al. The impact of surgical staging on the prognosis of mucinous borderline tumors of the ovaries: a multicenter study. Anticancer Res. 2017;37:5609–16.PubMed Gungorduk K, Asicioglu O, Braicu EI, Almuheimid J, Gokulu SG, Cetinkaya N, et al. The impact of surgical staging on the prognosis of mucinous borderline tumors of the ovaries: a multicenter study. Anticancer Res. 2017;37:5609–16.PubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Bendifallah S, Nikpayam M, Ballester M, Uzan C, Fauvet R, Morice P, et al. New pointers for surgical staging of borderline ovarian tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:443–9.CrossRef Bendifallah S, Nikpayam M, Ballester M, Uzan C, Fauvet R, Morice P, et al. New pointers for surgical staging of borderline ovarian tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:443–9.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Longacre TA, McKenney JK, Tazelaar HD, Kempson RL, Hendrickson MR. Ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential (borderline tumors): outcome-based study of 276 patients with long-term (> or =5-year) follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:707–23.CrossRef Longacre TA, McKenney JK, Tazelaar HD, Kempson RL, Hendrickson MR. Ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential (borderline tumors): outcome-based study of 276 patients with long-term (> or =5-year) follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:707–23.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Lesieur B, Kane A, Duvillard P, Gouy S, Pautier P, Lhomme C, et al. Prognostic value of lymph node involvement in ovarian serous borderline tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:438.e431–7.CrossRef Lesieur B, Kane A, Duvillard P, Gouy S, Pautier P, Lhomme C, et al. Prognostic value of lymph node involvement in ovarian serous borderline tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:438.e431–7.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Gershenson DM. Management of borderline ovarian tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;41:49–59.CrossRef Gershenson DM. Management of borderline ovarian tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;41:49–59.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Yinon Y, Beiner ME, Gotlieb WH, Korach Y, Perri T, Ben-Baruch G. Clinical outcome of cystectomy compared with unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy as fertility-sparing treatment of borderline ovarian tumors. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:479–84.CrossRef Yinon Y, Beiner ME, Gotlieb WH, Korach Y, Perri T, Ben-Baruch G. Clinical outcome of cystectomy compared with unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy as fertility-sparing treatment of borderline ovarian tumors. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:479–84.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Surgical management of borderline ovarian tumors: the role of fertility-sparing surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:75–82.CrossRef Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Surgical management of borderline ovarian tumors: the role of fertility-sparing surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:75–82.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Song T, Choi CH, Park HS, Kim MK, Lee YY, Kim TJ, et al. Fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: oncologic safety and reproductive outcomes. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:640–6.CrossRef Song T, Choi CH, Park HS, Kim MK, Lee YY, Kim TJ, et al. Fertility-sparing surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: oncologic safety and reproductive outcomes. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:640–6.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Sun L, Li N, Song Y, Wang G, Zhao Z, Wu L. Clinicopathologic features and risk factors for recurrence of mucinous borderline ovarian tumors: a retrospective study with follow-up of more than 10 years. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28:1643–9.CrossRef Sun L, Li N, Song Y, Wang G, Zhao Z, Wu L. Clinicopathologic features and risk factors for recurrence of mucinous borderline ovarian tumors: a retrospective study with follow-up of more than 10 years. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28:1643–9.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Jia Z, Xiang Y, Yang J, Shi H, Jia W, Leng H. Oncofertility outcomes after fertility-sparing treatment of bilateral serous borderline ovarian tumors: results of a large retrospective study. Hum Reprod. 2020;35:328–39.CrossRef Jia Z, Xiang Y, Yang J, Shi H, Jia W, Leng H. Oncofertility outcomes after fertility-sparing treatment of bilateral serous borderline ovarian tumors: results of a large retrospective study. Hum Reprod. 2020;35:328–39.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Song T, Hun Choi C, Lee YY, Kim TJ, Lee JW, Bae DS, et al. Oncologic and reproductive outcomes of cystectomy compared with oophorectomy as a treatment for borderline ovarian tumours. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2008–14.CrossRef Song T, Hun Choi C, Lee YY, Kim TJ, Lee JW, Bae DS, et al. Oncologic and reproductive outcomes of cystectomy compared with oophorectomy as a treatment for borderline ovarian tumours. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2008–14.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Sun H, Chen X, Zhu T, Liu N, Yu A, Wang S. Age-dependent difference in impact of fertility preserving surgery on disease-specific survival in women with stage I borderline ovarian tumors. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11:54.CrossRef Sun H, Chen X, Zhu T, Liu N, Yu A, Wang S. Age-dependent difference in impact of fertility preserving surgery on disease-specific survival in women with stage I borderline ovarian tumors. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11:54.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Song T, Kim MK, Jung YW, Yun BS, Seong SJ, Choi CH, et al. Minimally invasive compared with open surgery in patients with borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145:508–12.CrossRef Song T, Kim MK, Jung YW, Yun BS, Seong SJ, Choi CH, et al. Minimally invasive compared with open surgery in patients with borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145:508–12.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Wong HF, Low JJ, Chua Y, Busmanis I, Tay EH, Ho TH. Ovarian tumors of borderline malignancy: a review of 247 patients from 1991 to 2004. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:342–9.CrossRef Wong HF, Low JJ, Chua Y, Busmanis I, Tay EH, Ho TH. Ovarian tumors of borderline malignancy: a review of 247 patients from 1991 to 2004. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:342–9.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Yoshida A, Tavares BVG, Sarian LO, Andrade L, Derchain SF. Clinical features and management of women with borderline ovarian tumors in a single center in Brazil. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41:176–82.CrossRef Yoshida A, Tavares BVG, Sarian LO, Andrade L, Derchain SF. Clinical features and management of women with borderline ovarian tumors in a single center in Brazil. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41:176–82.CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Koensgen D, Weiss M, Assmann K, Brucker SY, Wallwiener D, Stope MB, et al. Characterization and management of borderline ovarian tumors - results of a retrospective, single-center study of patients treated at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics of the University Medicine Greifswald. Anticancer Res. 2018;38:1539–45.PubMed Koensgen D, Weiss M, Assmann K, Brucker SY, Wallwiener D, Stope MB, et al. Characterization and management of borderline ovarian tumors - results of a retrospective, single-center study of patients treated at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics of the University Medicine Greifswald. Anticancer Res. 2018;38:1539–45.PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Staging procedures fail to benefit women with borderline ovarian tumours who want to preserve fertility: a retrospective analysis of 448 cases
verfasst von
Na Li
Jinhai Gou
Lin Li
Xiu Ming
Ting Wenyi Hu
Zhengyu Li
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2020
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Cancer / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07262-w

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

BMC Cancer 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

„Überwältigende“ Evidenz für Tripeltherapie beim metastasierten Prostata-Ca.

22.05.2024 Prostatakarzinom Nachrichten

Patienten mit metastasiertem hormonsensitivem Prostatakarzinom sollten nicht mehr mit einer alleinigen Androgendeprivationstherapie (ADT) behandelt werden, mahnt ein US-Team nach Sichtung der aktuellen Datenlage. Mit einer Tripeltherapie haben die Betroffenen offenbar die besten Überlebenschancen.

So sicher sind Tattoos: Neue Daten zur Risikobewertung

22.05.2024 Melanom Nachrichten

Das größte medizinische Problem bei Tattoos bleiben allergische Reaktionen. Melanome werden dadurch offensichtlich nicht gefördert, die Farbpigmente könnten aber andere Tumoren begünstigen.

CAR-M-Zellen: Warten auf das große Fressen

22.05.2024 Onkologische Immuntherapie Nachrichten

Auch myeloide Immunzellen lassen sich mit chimären Antigenrezeptoren gegen Tumoren ausstatten. Solche CAR-Fresszell-Therapien werden jetzt für solide Tumoren entwickelt. Künftig soll dieser Prozess nicht mehr ex vivo, sondern per mRNA im Körper der Betroffenen erfolgen.

Blutdrucksenkung könnte Uterusmyome verhindern

Frauen mit unbehandelter oder neu auftretender Hypertonie haben ein deutlich erhöhtes Risiko für Uterusmyome. Eine Therapie mit Antihypertensiva geht hingegen mit einer verringerten Inzidenz der gutartigen Tumoren einher.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.