McKenney Jesse K, Gilks C Blake, Kalloger Steve, Longacre Teri A
*Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA †Vancouver General Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Sep;40(9):1155-64. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000692.
The classification of extraovarian disease into invasive and noninvasive implants predicts patient outcome in patients with high-stage ovarian serous borderline tumors (tumors of low malignant potential). However, the morphologic criteria used to classify implants vary between studies. To date, there has been no large-scale study with follow-up data comparing the prognostic significance of competing criteria. Peritoneal and/or lymph node implants from 181 patients with high-stage serous borderline tumors were evaluated independently by 3 pathologists for the following 8 morphologic features: micropapillary architecture; glandular architecture; nests of epithelial cells with surrounding retraction artifact set in densely fibrotic stroma; low-power destructive tissue invasion; single eosinophilic epithelial cells within desmoplastic stroma; mitotic activity; nuclear pleomorphism; and nucleoli. Follow-up of 156 (86%) patients ranged from 11 to 264 months (mean, 89 mo; median, 94 mo). Implants with low-power destructive invasion into underlying tissue were the best predictor of adverse patient outcome with 69% overall and 59% disease-free survival (P<0.01). In the evaluation of individual morphologic features, the low-power destructive tissue invasion criterion also had excellent reproducibility between observers (κ=0.84). Extraovarian implants with micropapillary architecture or solid nests with clefts were often associated with tissue invasion but did not add significant prognostic value beyond destructive tissue invasion alone. Implants without attached normal tissue were not associated with adverse outcome and appear to be noninvasive. Because the presence of invasion in an extraovarian implant is associated with an overall survival analogous to that of low-grade serous carcinoma, the designation low-grade serous carcinoma is recommended. Even though the low-power destructive tissue invasion criterion has excellent interobserver reproducibility, it is further recommended that the presence of an invasive implant be confirmed by at least 2 pathologists (preferably at least 1 of whom is an experienced gynecologic pathologist) in order to establish the diagnosis of-low grade serous carcinoma.
将卵巢外疾病分为浸润性和非浸润性种植体可预测晚期卵巢浆液性交界性肿瘤(低恶性潜能肿瘤)患者的预后。然而,不同研究中用于分类种植体的形态学标准存在差异。迄今为止,尚无一项具有随访数据的大规模研究来比较相互竞争的标准的预后意义。3位病理学家对181例晚期浆液性交界性肿瘤患者的腹膜和/或淋巴结种植体独立评估了以下8种形态学特征:微乳头结构;腺管结构;上皮细胞巢伴周围收缩假象且位于致密纤维化间质中;低倍镜下的破坏性组织浸润;促纤维组织增生性间质内的单个嗜酸性上皮细胞;有丝分裂活性;核多形性;以及核仁。156例(86%)患者的随访时间为11至264个月(平均89个月;中位数94个月)。低倍镜下对深层组织有破坏性浸润的种植体是患者不良预后的最佳预测指标,总体生存率为69%,无病生存率为59%(P<0.01)。在对个体形态学特征的评估中,低倍镜下的破坏性组织浸润标准在观察者之间也具有出色的可重复性(κ=0.84)。具有微乳头结构或有裂隙的实性巢状结构的卵巢外种植体常与组织浸润相关,但除了单纯的破坏性组织浸润外,并未增加显著的预后价值。无附着正常组织的种植体与不良预后无关,似乎为非浸润性。由于卵巢外种植体中浸润的存在与低级别浆液性癌的总体生存率相似,因此建议诊断为低级别浆液性癌。尽管低倍镜下的破坏性组织浸润标准在观察者之间具有出色的可重复性,但进一步建议至少由2位病理学家(最好至少有1位是经验丰富的妇科病理学家)确认浸润性种植体的存在,以便确立低级别浆液性癌的诊断。