Ovarian tumors of borderline malignancy (tumors of low malignant potential): a critical appraisal.
Before the designations borderline malignancy and low malignant potential were used, the surface epithelial-stromal tumors of the ovary were simply classified into benign and malignant categories. The introduction of the borderline category of tumors has been a great advancement in classification, because it has set apart from the general group of surface epithelial cancers a subgroup with a much better prognosis, stage-for-stage, than that of conventional ovarian carcinomas. Over the last 20 years, pathologists have learned to recognize the distinctive clinicopathologic features of serous borderline tumors as well as the adverse prognostic significance of the associated invasive peritoneal lesions, whether they may represent true implants or independent primary tumors. We have urged our surgical colleagues to search for the peritoneal lesions, and sample them meticulously, and advised our fellow oncologists not to administer adjuvant therapy to patients with noninvasive implants lacking malignant epithelial cells. There is now convincing evidence in the literature that the only fatal cases of serous borderline tumors are those associated with invasive implants, and chemotherapy is indicated only for these rare tumors. It has also been demonstrated that Stage I intestinal mucinous borderline tumors and noninvasive well-differentiated mucinous carcinomas both have an almost equally good prognosis. The current treatment for pseudomyxoma peritonei is still unsatisfactory, but we have recently learned that most of the mucinous ovarian tumors associated with pseudomyxoma peritonei are secondary to similar tumors of the appendix. In the remaining cases, however, the ovarian tumor appears to be responsible for the pseudomyxoma peritonei. Borderline tumors also exist in the endometrioid, clear cell, and Brenner surface epithelial categories, but these tumors have been too rare for clear delineation of their clinical and pathologic features. Recently, some investigators have proposed to abandon the borderline category and to return to the old benign-malignant classification system by dividing unevenly the borderline tumors into a larger group of atypical proliferative epithelial cystadenomas and a smaller category of recently described but still not well-characterized noninvasive carcinomas. In the author's opinion, such a recommendation is misleading because it ignores the possibility of rare but significant behavioral exceptions on each of these two groups of tumors. Furthermore, careful tumor staging is mandatory in both instances regardless of the type of terminology used. It is hoped that by keeping the borderline designation, knowledge on this group of ovarian tumors will continue to expand as it has been until now.
Prat
J
J
Department of Pathology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Spain.
D002288:Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous / Q000473:pathology; D000236:Adenoma / Q000473:pathology; D000328:Adult; D001948:Brenner Tumor / Q000473:pathology; D002277:Carcinoma / Q000145:classification / Q000473:pathology*; D002278:Carcinoma in Situ / Q000473:pathology; D018269:Carcinoma, Endometrioid / Q000473:pathology; D018283:Cystadenocarcinoma, Papillary / Q000473:pathology; D004848:Epithelium / Q000473:pathology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D010051:Ovarian Neoplasms / Q000145:classification / Q000473:pathology*; D010534:Peritoneal Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology; D011553:Pseudomyxoma Peritonei / Q000473:pathology