Ovarian Tumors of Low Malignant Potential
Ovarian Tumors of Low Malignant Potential
Controversies surrounding ovarian
tumors of low malignant
potential (LMP) largely arise
from gaps in our understanding of
their etiology and biology, as well as
the lack of effective adjuvant therapy
for the small proportion of patients
who experience progressive disease.
These gaps in knowledge have also led
to confusion in nomenclature.
These tumors have been called "ovarian
tumors of low malignant potential,"
based on the observation that
most are associated with a benign
prognosis, "borderline ovarian tumors,"
based on the faulty premise that
they represent an intermediate stage
between benign ovarian tumors and
frank epithelial carcinoma, and "atypical
proliferating tumors," a more recent
title introduced to escape from the
cancer mindset associated with the
terms "borderline" and "malignant."
Recent developments in molecular
biology suggest that what we call "epithelial
ovarian carcinoma" really represents
a potpourri of different histologies,
each with a differing etiology,
molecular biology, prognosis, and response
to therapy.[2,3] Similarly, both
clinical and laboratory reports suggest
that ovarian tumors of LMP represent
a "grab bag" of tumors, again with
different etiologies, molecular biologies,
and prognoses. LMP tumors
do not appear to represent an intermediate
stage between benign ovarian
epithelium and carcinoma. To date,
however, the lack of consensus among
gynecologic pathologists as to the appropriate
nomenclature of the various
subtypes has hampered communication
among investigators. In addition,
in many reports, the diagnoses have
been based on light microscopy, with
variable use of molecular biology for
more specific characterization.
Another pathologic controversy
centers on the role of "invasive" vs
"noninvasive" peritoneal implants. Several
retrospective reports suggest that
the presence of "invasive" implants
conveys a worse prognosis.[6-10] To
date, however, gynecologic pathologists
have not been able to reach a consensus
as to what histopathologic features
denote invasion. We would argue
that the presence of invasion signifies
a primary peritoneal carcinoma,
rather than a tumor of LMP.
Yet another controversy swirls around the origin of mucinous ovarian
tumors associated with pseudomyxoma
peritonei. Recent developments
suggest that the majority of these cases
are associated with a primary tumor
in the appendix or elsewhere in the
gastrointestinal tract.[11,12] We concur,
and would recommend removing
this group of intra-abdominal tumors
from the larger classification of ovarian
Several groups have also argued
that certain ovarian tumors with
"micropapillary"features are associated
with a higher rate of disease progression.[
13-15] The term "micropapillary
serous carcinoma" has been
proposed for this subset of tumors,
again removing them from the category
of ovarian LMP tumors. To
date, however, this delineation has not
been universally accepted.
Data on the incidence of LMP tumors
should not be considered particularly
reliable. Published incidence data
stems from both population-based tumor
registries and single-institution series.
In most cases, the reports from
population-based registries have not
included central pathology review. We
do not know whether changes in
awareness of this entity may have affected
reported changes in incidence,
nor how reliable pathologists are in
making this diagnosis.
Moreover, cancer registries have
not routinely collected information on
benign ovarian tumors, a category in
which ovarian tumors of LMP are
sometimes included. The Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results
(SEER) Program of the National Cancer
Institute (NCI), for example,
stopped collecting data on LMP tumors
in 1997. Comparison between
institutional series has been difficult,
as individual pathologists have often
used different diagnostic criteria for
different subtypes of LMP tumors.
Ovarian tumors of LMP have been
reported among Caucasian, black African,
Chinese, Japanese, and Indian
populations. Among populations
that are predominantly Caucasian, they
appear to comprise from 4% to 14% of
all ovarian neoplasms. Shi et al have
reported that the ratio of borderline epithelial
ovarian tumors to epithelial carcinomas
in China is 1:5.9, with a similar
incidence of mucinous and serous
tumors of LMP. Harlow et al
survyeyed ovarian tumors in western
Washington State between 1975 and
1983. They found that the incidence
of ovarian tumors of LMP was 26.2 per
million women per year in the white
population and 16.5 per million women
per year in the nonwhite population.
They also noted an increase in the incidence
of serous and mucinous tumors
of LMP from 7.1 per million women
per year to 39 per million women per
year between 1975 and 1983.
As with incidence, collective data on prognosis is hardly robust, as it is largely based on population-based cancer registries without central pathology review or predominantly retrospective institutional series with inconsistent pathologic criteria between institutions. In addition, some reports lump all LMP patients together, while others split off the most common subtypes (serous and mucinous). Nonetheless, the vast majority of reports indicate that most of these tumors convey a benign prognosis, particularly if patients with mucinous tumors of gastrointestinal origin or primary peritoneal cancers are excluded. Data from the NCI's SEER program, for example, which tracked 2,818 women, showed a 10-year relative survival of 97% for women with stage I ovarian tumors of LMP, 90% for those with stage II, 88% for those with stage III, and 69% for those with stage IV. Similarly, Bjorge et al found 93% 5-year survival for women diagnosed with LMP tumors in Norway between 1970 and 1993. Seidman and Kurman summarized 97 reports, which included 4,129 serous tumors of LMP. They calculated the overall disease-specfic survival rate, with a mean follow-up of 7 years, to be 99% for women with stage I disease and 95% for women with stage III disease. Zanetta and colleagues found disease-free survival to be 99% for 277 women with stage I disease, 96% for 24 women with stage II disease, and 89% for 28 women with stage III disease, with a mean follow-up of 70 months. Epidemiology We observe different patterns in epidemiology between ovarian tumors of LMP and epithelial ovarian cancer. The most common inherited predilections for epitheial ovarian cancer- namely BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)-do not appear to increase the risk of LMP tumors. The use of fertility drugs appears to increase the risk of LMP tumors but not ovarian carcinomas.[25,26] LMP tumors are more common among younger women, whereas epithelial ovarian tumors are more common among older women. On the other hand, factors that reduce the number of ovulations and increase exposure to progestins-ie, pregnancy, lactation, and the use of oral contraceptives-do decrease the risk of both LMP tumors and epithelial ovarian carcinomas. Preoperative Diagnosis The absence of an effective screening test or algorithm for epithelial ovarian cancer is well known. Similarly, no pattern of tumor marker expression or imaging study has been shown to reliably predict ovarian tumors of LMP or to distinguish between ovarian cancer and LMP tumors. CA-125 can be elevated in serous tumors of LMP but is generally not elevated with mucinous tumors of LMP. Ovarian tumors of LMP share the same presenting symptoms as those of any ovarian enlargement, benign or malignant. In general, the most commly reported symptoms are abdominal discomfort, abdominal pain, and/or a feeling of abdominal enlargement or sensation of a mass. Intraoperative Diagnosis The diagnosis of an ovarian tumor of LMP is best made on permanent section, after inspection of representative slides prepared from an ovarian tumor as well as other intra-abdominal and retroperitoneal samples. Consultation with a pathologist with expertise in the diagnosis of ovarian malignancies may be helpful. Frozen- section diagnosis of an LMP tumor is often unreliable.[30-33] The operating surgeon, therefore, is often told that a tumor is "at least LMP." He or she must then make intraoperative decisions with the knowledge that the final diagnosis may be LMP or invasive cancer. Surgical Management Preoperative counseling remains critically important. One must explore with a patient and her family her desire for future fertility and to retain normal tissue. As noted above, LMP tumors are more common among younger women. The gynecologic surgeon should, therefore, consider conservative management for LMP tumors. A review of treatment patterns in the US found that half of women less than 40 years of age undergo conservative, fertility-sparing surgery when diagnosed with an ovarian tumor of LMP. It may be appropriate in certain instances to plan a second surgical procedure once final pathology is available.[ 34] If an individual with appropriate training in the operative and clinical management of ovarian cancer is not available when an LMP tumor is diagnosed, then a second operation should be scheduled when a gynecologic surgeon with the relevant expertise is available. expertise is available. Nonetheless, certain principles of gynecologic oncology should be observed. First, these patients need a complete exploration of the pelvis and abdomen. Any suspicious lesions should be biopsied or removed. Surgical staging should be performed, with conservation of the uterus and contralateral tube and ovary as indicated.[ 35] Women who undergo ovarian cystectomy are at greater risk for tumor persistence or recurrence than those who undergo oophorectomy. A laparoscopic approach may be appropriate, as long as the operator has expertise in both laparoscopic techniques and the operative management of gynecologic cancers.[36,37] Postoperative Adjuvant Therapy To date, no adjuvant therapy- whether chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, or radiation therapy-has been shown to prolong survival in women with LMP tumors. This observation has held true both in the few prospective trials completed as well as in the many retrospective reports.[16,38,39] The 1994 National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement on Ovarian Cancer concluded that adjuvant chemotherapy was not of benefit to women with ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. As mentioned above, however, these women should undergo complete surgical exploration and staging to rule out the diagnosis of a primary peritoneal cancer. As noted earlier, several retrospective reports suggest that women with "micropapillary carcinoma"-a subset of patients who have been grouped with LMP tumor patients in the past- are at high risk for recurrence and progression.[13-15] Even these micropapillary tumors, however, are relatively indolent; they have limited response to the standard chemotherapeutic agents we use for epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Prognostic Markers Several groups of investigators have sought to identify progostic markers that might identify LMP tumor patients at high risk for disease progression. Markers identified to date in single-institution, retrospective studies include DNA ploidy, p53 overexpression, MIB1, and histomorphometry.[ 41-44] However, none of these have been validated in prospective, multi-institutional studies. Risk of Malignant Transformation The risk of malignant transformation of LMP tumors is controversial. Kurman and Trimble summarized 22 studies, including 953 women with serous LMP tumors, and found a risk of malignant transforation of 0.7%, similar to the risk of malignant transformation of uterine leiomyomata. They excluded from this analysis women with invasive peritoneal implants at time of diagnosis. Crispens et al, however, found that 36 of 49 patients with recurrent LMP tumors had low-grade serous carcinomas at the time of recurrence. This retrospective series ran from 1956 to 1997; many patients did not have definitive surgical staging at the time of initial diagnosis. We suspect that the vast majority of cases in which the malignant transformation of an LMP tumor has been posited actually reflect either a primary peritoneal cancer missed at initial diagnosis or a new ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer. Therapy for Progressive Disease Surgical debulking remains the mainstay of treatment for the few women who experience disease progression. Ovarian tumors of LMP, even those that progress, are generally so indolent that they do not respond to standard chemotherapeutic agents. That said, experimental cytostatic or biologic regimens should be considered in this setting. Surveillance After Conservative Surgery Women who undergo conservative surgery are at risk for persistent or progressive disease. They should be counseled regarding this risk. Zanetta et al have reported on a small series of 24 women who underwent conservative surgery. They found that transvaginal ultrasound was more sensitive than physical examination or CA-125 in diagnosing recurrences. In their series, 18 of 19 women found to have recurrences had an abnormal adnexal mass on ultrasound. Pregnancy After Diagnosis Numerous retrospective reports suggest that women who undergo pregnancy after the diagnosis of an LMP tumor do not increase the risk of tumor progression.[48-52] We should note, however, that these women are at risk for the presence of persistent LMP disease at the time of cesarean section, laparoscopy, or hysterectomy after completion of childbearing. There have also been case reports documenting the use of in vitro fertilization among women with a history of an ovarian tumor of LMP. Hormone Replacement Therapy After Diagnosis We have scant data regarding the safety of hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) after the diagnosis of an LMP tumor. Prospective clinical trials evaluating the safety of HRT are not feasible, given the low baseline risk of progression, the relatively low incidence of LMP tumors, and recent studies demonstrating the limited health benefits of HRT. A woman who has acute menopausal symptoms as well as a diagnosis of an LMP tumor should be considered for HRT. She should be counseled, however, about the absence of data supporting the safety of HRT in this clinical setting. Future Directions for Research We need to go beyond light microscopy to molecular biology to characterize ovarian tumors of LMP. In this instance, classifications will be more useful with further "splitting" rather than "lumping." Once we have defined the molecular biology of these tumors, then we need to identify both prognostic markers, to help identify women at risk for progression, and targets for therapy. Once we have identified therapeutic targets, then we need to develop and test interventions in the appropriate patient populations. Given the small number of women who may benefit from postoperative adjuvant therapy, as well as the small number of women who experience progression of disease, we will need to set up multiinstitutional phase II trials for such evaluations.
2. Jazaeri AA, Yee CJ, Sotiriou C, et al: Gene expression profiles of BRCA1-linked, BRCA2- linked, and sporadic ovarian cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:990-1000, 2002.
3. Schwartz DR, Kardia SL, Shedden KA, et al: Gene expression in ovarian cancer reflects both morphology and biologic behavior, distinguishing clear cell from other poor-prognosis ovarian cancers. Cancer Res 62:4722-4729, 2002.
4. Prat J: Ovarian tumors of borderline malignant (tumors of low malignant potential): A critical appraisal. Adv Anat Pathol 6:247-274, 1999.
5. McCluskey LL, Dubeau LL: Biology of ovarian cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 9:465-470, 1997.
6. Buttin BM, Herzog TJ, Powell MJD, et al: Epithelial ovarian tumors of low malignant potential: The role of microinvasion. Obstet Gynecol 99:11-17, 2002.
7. Gershenson DM, Silva EG, Levy L, et al: Ovarian serous borderline tumors with invasive peritoneal implants. Cancer 82:1096-1103, 1998.
8. Morice P, Camatte S, Rey A, et al: Prognostic factors for patients with advanced stage serous borderline tumors of the ovary. Ann Oncol 14:592-598, 2003.
9. Gilks CB, Alkkushi A, Yue JJ, et al: Advanced- stage serous borderline tumors of the ovary: A clinicopathological study of 49 cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol 22:29-36, 2003.
10. Bell KA, Smith Sehdev AE, Kurman RJ: Refined diagnostic criteria for implants associated with ovarian atypical proliferative serous tumors (borderline) and micropapillary serous carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 25:419-432, 2001.
11. Ronnett BM, Shmookler BM, Diener- West M, et al: Immunohistochemical evidence supporting the appendiceal origin of pseudomyxoma peritonei in women. Int J Gynecol Pathol 16:1-9, 1997.
12. Lee KR, Scully RE: Mucinous tumors of the ovary: A clinicopathologic study of 196 borderline tumors (of intestinal type) and carcinomas, including an evaluation of 11 cases with ‘pseudomyxoma peritonei.’ Am J Surg Pathol 24:1447-1464, 2000.
13. Burks RT, Sherman ME, Kurman RJ: Micropapillary serous carcinoma of the ovary: A distinctive low-grade carcinoma related to serous borderline tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 20:1319-1330, 1996.
14. Eichhorn JH, Bell DA, Young RH, et al: Ovarian serous borderline tumors with micropapillary and cribriform patterns: a study of 40 cases of comparison with 44 cases without these pattterns. Am J Surg Pathol 23:397- 409, 1999.
15. Dietel M, Hauptmann S: Serous tumors of low malignant potential of the ovary. I. Diagnostic pathology. Virchows Arch 436:403- 412, 2000.
16. Trimble EL, Trimble CL: Epithelial ovarian tumors of low malignant potential, in Markman M, Hoskins WJ (eds): Cancer of the Ovary. New York, Raven Press, 1993.
17. Shi Y, Ye F, Lu W, et al: Histologic classification in 10,288 cases of ovarian malignant tumors in China. Chinese J Obstet Gynecol 37:97-100, 2002.
18. Harlow BL, Weiss NS, Lofton S: Epidemiology of borderline ovarian tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 78:71-74, 1987.
19. Trimble CL, Kosary C, Trimble EL: Long-term survival and patterns of care in women with ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 86:34-37, 2002.
20. Bjorge T, Engleand A, Hansen S, et al: Prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer and borderline tumors diagnosed in Norway between 1954 and 1993. Int J Cancer 75:663- 670, 1998.
21. Seidman JH, Kurman RJ: Ovarian serous borderline tumors: A critical review of the literature with emphasis on prognostic indicators. Hum Pathol 31:539-557, 2000.
22. Zanetta G, Rota S, Chiari S, et al: Behavior of borderline tumors with particular interest to persistence, recurrence, and progression to invasive carcinoma: A prospective study. J Clin Oncol 19:2658-2664, 2001.
23. Harris R, Whittemore AS, Itnyre J: Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: Collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. III. Epithelial tumors of low malignant potenitial in white women. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Am J Epidemiol 136:1204- 1211, 1992.
24. Gottlieb WH, Friedman E, Bar-Sade RB, et al: Rates of Jewish ancestral mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in borderline ovarian tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:995-1000, 1998.
25. Parazzini F, Negri E, La Vecchia C, et al: Treatment for fertility and risk of ovarian tumors of borderline malignancy. Gynecol Oncol 68:226-228, 1998.
26. Ness RB, Cramer DW, Goodman MT, et al: Infertility, fertility drugs, and ovarian cancer: A pooled analysis of 8 case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 155:217-224, 2002.
27. Eltabbakh GH, Natarajan N, Piver MS, et al: Epidemiologic differences between women with borderline ovarian tumors and women with epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 74:103-107, 1999.
28. Riman T, Dickman PW, Nillson S, et al: Risk factors for epithelial borderline tumors: Results of a Swedish case control study. Gynecol Oncol 83:575-585, 2001.
29. Sengupta PS, Shanks JH, Buckley CH, et al: Requirement for expert histopathologic assessment of ovarian cancer and borderline tumors. Br J Cancer 82:760-762, 2000.
30. Yeo EL, Yu, KM, Poddar MC, et al: The accuracy of intraoperative frozen section in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 24:189-915, 1998.
31. Houck K, Nikrui N, Duska L, et al: Borderline tumors of the ovary: correlation of frozen and permanent histopathologic diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 95:189-915, 2000.
32. Kayicioglu Fl, Pata O, Cengiz S, et al: Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in borderline ovarian malignancy. Gynecol ObstetInvest 49:187-189, 2000.
33. Pinto PB, Andrade LA, Derchain SF: Accuracy of intraoperative frozen section diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 81:230-232, 2001.
34. Darai E, Teboul J, Fauconnier A, et al: Management and outcome of borderline ovarian tumors incidentally discovered at or after laparoscopy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77:451-457, 1998.
35. Piu PA, Gershenson DM, Bevers MW, et al: The current status of surgical staging of ovarian serous borderline tumors. Cancer 85:905-911, 1999.
36. Malik E, Bohm W, Stoz F, et al: Laparoscopic management of ovarian tumors. Surg Endosc 12:1326-1333, 1998.
37. Urlich U, Paulus W, Schneider A, et al: Laparoscopic surgery for complex ovarian masses. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7:373- 380, 2000.
38. Barnhill DR, Kurman RJ, Brady MF, et al: Preliminary analysis of the behavior of stage I ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 13:2752-2756, 1995.
39. Trope C, Kaern J, Vergote I, et al: Are borderline tumors of the ovary overtreated both surgically and systematically: A review of four prospective randomized trials including 253 patients with borderline tumors. Gynecol Oncol 51:236-243, 1993.
40. Ovarian cancer: Screening, treatment, and follow-up. NIH Consensus Statement, April 5-7, 1994. 12(3):1-30.
41. Kaern J , Trope CG, Kristensen GB, et al: DNA ploidy: The most important prognostic factor in patients with borderline tumors of the ovary. Int J Gynecol Cancer 3:349-358, 1993.
42. Gershenson DM, Deavers M, Diaz S, et al: Prognostic significance of p53 epxrssion in advanced-stage ovarian serous borderline tumors. Clin Cancer Res 5:4053-4058, 1999.
43. Frigerio L, Agnello A, Sassi E, et al: Adjuvant role of MIB1 index in differentiating serous ovarian tumors-preliminary report. Anticancer Research 17(2B):1287-1292, 1997.
44. Baak KPA, Van der Ley G: Borderline or malignant ovarian tumor: a case report of decsion making with morphometry. J Clin Pathol 37:1110-1113, 1984.
45. Kurman RJ, Trimble CL: The behavior of serous tumors of low malignant potential: are they ever malignant? Int J Gynecol Pathol 12:120-127, 1993.
46. Crispens MA, Bodurka D, Deavers M, et al: Response and survival in patients with progressive or recurrent serous ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Obstet Gynecol 99:3-10, 2002.
47. Zanetta G, Rota S, Lissoni A: Ultrasound, physical examination, and CA 125 measurement for the detection of recurrence after conservative surgery for early borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 81:63-66, 2001.
48. Camatte S, Morice P, Pautier P: Fertility results of conservative treatment of advanced stage serous borderline tumor of the ovary. Br J Obstet Gynecol 109:376-380, 2002.
49. Morris RT, Gershenson DM, Silva EG, et al: Outcome and reproductive function after conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors. Obstet Gynecol 95:541-547, 2000.
50. Papadimitriou DS, Martin-Hirsch P, Kitchener HC, et al: Recurrent borderline ovarian tumors after conservative management in women wishing to retain their fertility. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 20:94-97, 1999.
51. Duska LR, Change YC, Flynn CE, et al: Epithelial ovarian carcinoma in the reproductive age group. Cancer 85:2623-2629. 1999.
52. Gotleib WH, Flikker S, Davidson B, et al: Borderline tumors of the ovary: Fertility treatment, conservative management, and pregnancy outcome. Cancer 82:141-146, 1998.
53. Gallot D, Pouly JL, Janny L, et al: Successful transfer of frozen-thawed emryos obtained immediated before radical surgery for stage IIIA serous borderline ovarian tumor: Case report. Hum Reprod 15:2347-2350, 2000.