Lawrence W D
Wayne State University School of Medicine, Hutzel Hospital, Department of Pathology, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.
Cancer. 1995 Nov 15;76(10 Suppl):2138-42. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19951115)76:10+<2138::aid-cncr2820761338>3.0.co;2-u.
In the early 1970s, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the terms "borderline malignancy" and "carcinoma of low malignant potential" in their classifications of surface epithelial tumors of the ovary in order to denote a subset of patients with a significantly more favorable prognosis than those with the "usual" surface epithelial carcinomas. Subsequently, a considerable clinicopathologic body of literature has arisen concerning borderline tumors, particularly the serous and mucinous types. Some of them, particularly advanced stage borderline tumors, have been purported to cause significant illness and death. However, some investigators have impugned their malignant nature, especially in Stage I disease, and blame the suggested poor prognosis in advanced cases on a paucity of accurate morbidity and mortality data and ambiguity in current histopathologic terminology; to address the latter, they have proposed to remove any connotation of malignancy by replacing the aforementioned terms with designations such as "atypical proliferating (serous or mucinous) tumor." Another soon-to-be proposed classification will use the terminology "borderline tumors" as a generic group without destructive invasion but with subdivisions into tumors with "epithelial atypia" and those with "intraepithelial carcinoma." The clinical and therapeutic implications of accurate diagnosis of ovarian borderline tumors mandate additional investigation to elucidate their true prognosis; indeed, further dialogue is necessary to arrive at a nosologic system to reflect that biologic behavior. However, until a consensus has been reached, the pathologic diagnosis should reflect, at some point, the currently sanctioned FIGO/WHO classification of surface epithelial ovarian tumors to obviate any misunderstanding that could lead to patient mismanagement.
20世纪70年代初,国际妇产科联合会(FIGO)和世界卫生组织(WHO)在其卵巢表面上皮性肿瘤分类中采用了“交界性恶性肿瘤”和“低恶性潜能癌”这两个术语,以表示一部分预后明显优于“普通”表面上皮性癌患者的亚组。随后,出现了大量关于交界性肿瘤,特别是浆液性和黏液性类型的临床病理文献。其中一些,特别是晚期交界性肿瘤,被认为会导致严重疾病和死亡。然而,一些研究者对其恶性本质提出质疑,尤其是在Ⅰ期疾病中,并将晚期病例中预后不良归因于准确的发病率和死亡率数据不足以及当前组织病理学术语的模糊性;为了解决后者,他们提议通过用“非典型增生性(浆液性或黏液性)肿瘤”等名称取代上述术语来消除任何恶性内涵。另一个即将提出的分类将把“交界性肿瘤”作为一个通用组,不具有破坏性浸润,但细分为具有“上皮异型性”的肿瘤和具有“上皮内癌”的肿瘤。准确诊断卵巢交界性肿瘤的临床和治疗意义需要进一步研究以阐明其真实预后;事实上,需要进一步对话以达成一个反映其生物学行为的疾病分类系统。然而,在达成共识之前,病理诊断在某个时候应反映目前FIGO/WHO认可的卵巢表面上皮性肿瘤分类,以避免任何可能导致患者管理不当的误解。