Premium
Histological grading of ovarian mucinous carcinoma – an outcome‐based analysis of traditional and novel systems
Author(s) -
Busca Aurelia,
NofechMozes Sharon,
OlkhovMitsel Ekaterina,
Gien Lilian T,
Bassiouny Dina,
Mirkovic Jelena,
Djordjevic Bojana,
ParraHerran Carlos
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
histopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.626
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1365-2559
pISSN - 0309-0167
DOI - 10.1111/his.14039
Subject(s) - grading (engineering) , medicine , univariate analysis , proportional hazards model , cohort , multivariate analysis , ovarian carcinoma , ovarian cancer , gynecology , carcinoma , oncology , cohort study , survival analysis , cancer , biology , ecology
Aims Grading of primary ovarian mucinous carcinoma (OMC) is inconsistent among practices. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting recommends grading OMC using the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) system for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, when needed. The growth pattern (expansile versus infiltrative), a known prognostic variable in OMC, is not considered in any grading system. We herein analysed the prognostic value of various grading methods in a well‐annotated cohort of OMC. Methods and results Institutional OMCs underwent review and grading by the Silverberg and FIGO schemes and a novel system, growth‐based grading (GBG), defined as G1 (expansile growth or infiltrative invasion in ≤10%) and G2 (infiltrative growth >10% of tumour). Of 46 OMCs included, 80% were FIGO stage I, 11% stage II and 9% stage III. On follow‐up (mean = 52 months, range = 1–190), five patients (11%) had adverse events (three recurrences and four deaths). On univariate analysis, stage ( P = 0.01, Cox proportional analysis), Silverberg grade ( P = 0.01), GBG grade ( P = 0.001) and percentage of infiltrative growth ( P < 0.001), but not FIGO grade, correlated with disease‐free survival. Log‐rank analysis showed increased survival in patients with Silverberg grade 1 versus 2 ( P < 0.001) and those with GBG G1 versus G2 ( P < 0.001). None of the parameters evaluated was significant on multivariate analysis (restricted due to the low number of adverse events). Conclusions Silverberg and the new GBG system appear to be prognostically significant in OMC. Pattern‐based grading allows for a binary stratification into low‐ and high‐grade categories, which may be more appropriate for patient risk stratification. Despite current practices and recommendations to utilise FIGO grading in OMC, our study shows no prognostic significance of this system and we advise against its use.