nach oben

Erschienen in:

18.03.2016 | Gynecologic Oncology

Validation of a two-tier grading system in an unselected, consecutive cohort of serous ovarian cancer patients

verfasst von: Marco Johannes Battista, Cristina Cotarelo, Katrin Almstedt, Anne-Sophie Heimes, Georgios-Marios Makris, Veronika Weyer, Marcus Schmidt

Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

New insights into the carcinogenesis of ovarian cancer (OC) lead to the definition of low-grade and high-grade serous OC. In this study, we validated the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) two-tier grading system and compared it with the traditional three-tier grading system as suggested by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).

Methods

Consecutive patients with serous OC were enrolled. These two grading systems were assessed independently from each other. Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox-regression analyses were performed to validate and compare their prognostic impact.

Results

143 consecutive patients entered the study. According to the Kaplan–Meier estimates, the MDACC grading system (p = 0.001) predicted the progression free survival (PFS) more precisely than the FIGO system (p = 0.025). The MDACC grading system (p = 0.008) but not the FIGO system (p = 0.329) showed a statistically significant difference in terms of disease specific survival (DSS). Multivariable Cox-regression analyses revealed an independent prognostic impact of the MDACC grading system but not of the FIGO system for PFS (HR 1.570; 95 % CI 1.007–2.449; p = 0.047, and HR 0.712; 95 % CI 0.476–1.066; p = 0.099, respectively). Concerning DSS, the two-tier grading system but not the FIGO system showed a prognostic impact in a univariable Cox-regression analysis (HR 2.152; 95 % CI 1.207–3.835; p = 0.009, and HR 1.258; 95 % CI 0.801–1.975; p = 0.319, respectively).

Conclusions

We were able to validate the MDACC grading system in serous OC. Moreover, this grading system was stronger associated with survival than the FIGO system.

Landen CN, Birrer MJ, Sood AK (2008) Early Events in the Pathogenesis of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(6):995–1005CrossRefPubMed

Levanon K, Crum C, Drapkin R (2008) New insights into the pathogenesis of serous ovarian cancer and its clinical impact. J Clin Oncol 26(32):5284–5293CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kurman RJ, Shih IM (2011) Molecular pathogenesis and extraovarian origin of epithelial ovarian cancer–shifting the paradigm. Hum Pathol 42(7):918–931CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kucukgoz Gulec UK, Paydas S, Guzel AB, Vardar MA, Khatib G, Gumurdulu D (2015) The clinical characteristics and outcomes of cases with pure ovarian clear cell, mixed type and high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292(4):923–929CrossRef

Ahmed AA, Etemadmoghadam D, Temple J, Lynch AG, Riad M, Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group et al (2010) Driver mutations in TP53 are ubiquitous in high grade serous carcinoma of the ovary. J Pathol 221(1):49–56CrossRef

Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C, Friedlander M, Vergote I, Rustin G et al (2014) Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer: a preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 15(8):852–861CrossRefPubMed

Malpica A, Deavers MT, Lu K, Bodurka DC, Atkinson EN, Gershenson GM et al (2004) Grading ovarian serous carcinoma using a two-tier system. Am J Surg Pathol 28(4):496–504CrossRefPubMed

Malpica A, Deavers MT, Tornos C, Kurman RJ, Soslow R, Seidman JN et al (2007) Interobserver and intraobserver variability of a two-tier system for grading ovarian serous carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 31(8):1168–1174CrossRefPubMed

Bodurka DC, Deavers MT, Tian C, Sun CC, Malpica A, Coleman RL et al (2012) Reclassification of serous ovarian carcinoma by a 2-tier system: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 118(12):3087–3094CrossRefPubMed

10.

Prat J (2014) Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Int J Gynecol Obstet 124(1):1–5CrossRef

11.

Silverberg SG (2000) Histopathologic grading of ovarian carcinoma: a review and proposal. Int J Gynecol Pathol 19(1):7–15CrossRefPubMed

12.

International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (1971) Classification and Staging of Malignant Tumours in the Female Pelvis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 50(1):1–7CrossRef

13.

Serov S, Scully R, Sobin L. Histological typing of ovarian tumours. In: Serov S, Scully R, Sobin L (eds) International Histological Classification of Tumours, No 9. Geneve; 1973. pp 17–54

14.

Brugghe J, Baak JPA, Wiltshaw E, Fisher C (1995) Further evaluation of reproducibility and prognostic value of histologic typing and grading in FIGO stage I ovarian cancer patients without systemic locoregional adjuvant treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer 5(4):262–268CrossRefPubMed

15.

Benda JA, Zaino R. GOG Pathology Manual. Gynecology Oncology Group, editor. Buffalo NY; 1994

16.

Hernandez E, Bhagavan BS, Parmley TH, Rosenshein NB (1984) Interobserver variability in the interpretation of epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 17(1):117–123CrossRefPubMed

17.

Baak J, Chan K, Stolk J, Kenemans P (1987) Prognostic factors in borderline and invasive ovarian tumors of the common epithelial type. Pathol Res Pr 182(6):755–774CrossRef

18.

Bichel P, Jakobsen A (1989) A new histologic grading index in ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 8(2):147–155CrossRefPubMed

19.

Battista MJ, Mantai N, Sicking I, Cotarelo C, Weyer V, Lebrecht A et al (2014) Ki-67 as an independent prognostic factor in an unselected cohort of patients with ovarian cancer : results of an explorative, retrospective study. Oncol Rep 31(5):2213–2219PubMed

20.

Battista MJ, Cotarelo C, Jakobi S, Steetskamp J, Makris G, Sicking I et al (2014) Overexpression of epithelial cell adhesion molecule protein is associated with favorable prognosis in an unselected cohort of ovarian cancer patients. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 140(7):1097–1102CrossRefPubMed

21.

Seidman JD, Horkayne-Szakaly I, Cosin JA, Ryu SU, Haiba M, Boice CR et al (2006) Testing of two binary grading systems for FIGO stage III serous carcinoma of the ovary and peritoneum. Gynecol Oncol 103(2):703–708CrossRefPubMed

22.

Ayhan A, Kurman RJ, Yemelyanova A, Vang R, Logani S, Seidman JD et al (2009) Defining the cut-point between low- and high-grade ovarian serous carcinomas: a clinicopathologic and molecular genetic analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 33(8):1220–1224CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Gadducci A, Cosio S, Tana R, Genazzani AR (2009) Serum and tissue biomarkers as predictive and prognostic variables in epithelial ovarian cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 69(1):12–27CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Validation of a two-tier grading system in an unselected, consecutive cohort of serous ovarian cancer patients
verfasst von: Marco Johannes Battista
Cristina Cotarelo
Katrin Almstedt
Anne-Sophie Heimes
Georgios-Marios Makris
Veronika Weyer
Marcus Schmidt
Publikationsdatum: 18.03.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4070-5

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Validation of a two-tier grading system in an unselected, consecutive cohort of serous ovarian cancer patients