Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Defense Medical College Hospital, 3-2, Namiki, Saitama, 359-8513, Tokorozawa, Japan.
Department of Pathology, National Defense Medical College Hospital, 359-8513, Tokorozawa, Saitama, Japan.
J Ovarian Res. 2021 Feb 14;14(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s13048-021-00783-3.
In ovarian mucinous carcinoma, invasive pattern is the important factor but there were less reposts to investigate it. The aim of this study was to examine the association between prognosis and invasive patterns of ovarian mucinous carcinoma and to investigate the biomarkers of the diagnosis and prognosis immunochemically. Patients with ovarian mucinous carcinoma at our institution between 1984 and 2018 were identified. A pathological review was conducted using the 2020 World Health Organization criteria. The prognosis of infiltrative invasion and expansile invasion of ovarian mucinous carcinoma were retrospectively compared. In addition, immunohistochemical staining was conducted for all cases, and the immunohistochemical differences between the two invasive patterns were compared.
After the pathological review, 25 cases with infiltrative invasion and 24 cases with expansile invasion were included. Ovarian mucinous carcinoma with infiltrative invasion showed significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS, p < 0.01) and overall survival (OS, p < 0.01) than those with expansile invasion. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the pattern of infiltrative invasion was a worse prognostic factor for PFS (hazard ratio 9.01, p < 0.01) and OS (hazard ratio 17.56, p < 0.01). Immunohistochemically, cytokeratin (CK) 5/6 (p = 0.01), cluster of differentiation (CD) 24 (p = 0.02), and epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) (p < 0.01) were statistically related to infiltrative invasion. The PFS (p = 0.04) and OS (p = 0.02) of cases with EGFR-positive OMC were worse than those with negative OMC.
Infiltrative invasion was observed to be a prognostic factor showing worse outcomes for ovarian mucinous carcinoma compared to expansile infiltration. CK5/6, CD24, and EGFR might be biomarkers of the diagnosis.
在卵巢黏液性癌中,浸润模式是一个重要的因素,但目前对其研究较少。本研究旨在探讨卵巢黏液性癌浸润模式与预后的关系,并从免疫化学角度探讨诊断和预后的生物标志物。本研究回顾性分析了我院 1984 年至 2018 年间诊断为卵巢黏液性癌的患者。采用 2020 年世界卫生组织标准进行病理复查。比较了卵巢黏液性癌浸润性和扩张性浸润的预后。此外,对所有病例进行免疫组织化学染色,并比较了两种浸润模式的免疫组织化学差异。
病理复查后,纳入浸润性浸润 25 例,扩张性浸润 24 例。浸润性卵巢黏液性癌患者的无进展生存期(PFS,p<0.01)和总生存期(OS,p<0.01)明显差于扩张性浸润。多因素分析表明,浸润性浸润模式是 PFS(危险比 9.01,p<0.01)和 OS(危险比 17.56,p<0.01)的预后不良因素。免疫组化结果显示,细胞角蛋白(CK)5/6(p=0.01)、分化簇(CD)24(p=0.02)和表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)(p<0.01)与浸润性浸润有统计学关系。EGFR 阳性 OMC 患者的 PFS(p=0.04)和 OS(p=0.02)均较 EGFR 阴性 OMC 患者差。
与扩张性浸润相比,浸润性浸润被观察为卵巢黏液性癌的预后因素,表现出更差的结果。CK5/6、CD24 和 EGFR 可能是诊断的生物标志物。