Comparison of benign, borderline, and malignant mucinous ovarian tumors

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the preoperative tumor marker levels and imaging findings of patients diagnosed with mucinous ovarian tumors and to determine the utility of these parameters as predictors of malignant cases. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study involving 20 women with mucinous cystadenocarcinoma and 27 women with mucinous borderline tumor of intestinal type registered between November 1, 2006, and April 30, 2016, and of 47 women with mucinous cystadenoma registered between September 1, 2011, and April 30, 2016. The mucinous ovarian tumors were divided into three groups: benign group, borderline group, and malignant group. Preoperative tumor markers and imaging findings were compared among the three study groups. Results: In patients with definitive diagnoses of benign tumors and malignant tumors, the area under the curve (AUC) of CA125 was the highest, and the AUC of number of septa was second. In patients with definitive diagnoses of mucinous borderline tumors and mucinous carcinomas, the AUC of CA125 was the highest, and the AUC of CA72-4 was second. Conclusion: In mucinous tumors, measurements of CA125 and CA72-4 levels were helpful to distinguish malignant from benign tumors. The number of septa was a significant predictor of malignancy.

Mucinous ovarian tumor; CA125; CA72-4; Number of septa; Borderline tumor; Malignancy.

[1] Kelly P.J., Archbold P., Price J.H., Cardwell C., McCluggage W.G.: “Serum CA19.9 levels are commonly elevated in primary ovarian mucinous tumours but cannot be used to predict the histological subtype”. J. Clin. Pathol., 2010, 63, 169.

[2] Hart W.R.: “Mucinous tumors of the ovary: a review”. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol., 2005, 24, 4.

[3] Scully R.E., Young R.H., Clement P.B.: “Tumors of the ovary, maldeveloped gonads, fallopian tube and broad ligament”. In: Atlas of Tumor Pathology, 3rd series, fascicle 23. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 1998.

[4] Ilvan S., Ramazanoglu R., Ulker Akyildiz E., Calay Z., Bese T., Oruc N.: “The accuracy of frozen section (intraoperative consultation) in the diagnosis of ovarian masses”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2005, 97, 395.

[5] Rose P.G., Rubin R.B., Nelson B.E., Hunter R.E., Reale F.R.: “ Accuracy of frozen-section (intraoperative consultation) diagnosis of ovarian tumors”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1994, 171, 823.

[6] Shih K.K., Garg K., Soslow R.A., Chi D.S., Abu-Rustum N.R., Barakat R.R.: “Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis of ovarian borderline tumor”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2011, 123, 517.

[7] Pinto P.B., Andrade L.A., Derchain S.F.: “Accuracy of intraoperative frozen section diagnosis of ovarian tumors”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2001, 81, 230.

[8] Houck K., Nikrui N., Duska L., Chang Y., Fuller A.F., Bell D., et al.: “Borderline tumors of the ovary: correlation of frozen and permanent histopathologic diagnosis”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2000, 95, 839.

[9] Gol M., Baloglu A., Yigit S., Dogan M., Aydin C., Yensel U.: “Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in ovarian tumors: Is there a change in the course of time?” Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2003, 13, 593.

[10] Boriboonhirunsarn D., Sermboon A.: “Accuracy of frozen section in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumor”. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res., 2004, 30, 394.

[11] Tempfer C.B., Polterauer S., Bentz E.K., Reinthaller A., Hefler L.A.: “Accuracy of intraoperative frozen section analysis in borderline tumors of the ovary: a retrospective analysis of 96 cases and review of the literature”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2007, 107, 248.

[12] Taskiran C., Erdem O., Onan A., Bozkurt N., Yaman-Tunc S., Ataoglu O., et al.: “The role of frozen section evaluation in the diagnosis of adnexal mass”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2008, 18, 235.

[13] Rakhshan A., Zham H., Kazempour M.: “Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in ovarian masses: experience at a tertiary oncology center”. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., 2009, 280, 223.

[14] Brun J.L., Cortez A., Rouzier R., Callard P., Bazot M., Uzan S., et al.: “Factors influencing the use and accuracy of frozen section diagnosis of epithelial ovarian tumors”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2008, 199, 244.e1.

[15] Kim J.H., Kim T.J., Park Y.G., Lee S.H., Lee C.W., Song M.J., et al.: “Clinical analysis of intra-operative frozen section proven borderline tumors of the ovary”. J. Gynecol. Oncol., 2009, 20, 176.

[16] Timmerman D., Van Calster B., Jurkovic D., Valentin L., Testa A.C., Bernard J.P., et al.: “Inclusion of CA-125 does not improve mathematical models developed to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors”. J. Clin. Oncol., 2007, 25, 4194.

[17] Molina R., Ojeda B., Filella X., Borras G., Jo J., Mas E., et al.: “A prospective study of tumor markers CA 125 and CA 19.9 in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinomas”. Tumour Biol., 1992, 13, 278.

[18] Tamakoshi K., Kikkawa F., Shibata K., Tomoda K., Obata N.H., Wakahara F., et al.: “Clinical value of CA125, CA19-9, CEA, CA72- 4, and TPA in borderline ovarian tumor”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1996, 62, 67.

[19] Gotlieb W.H., Soriano D., Achiron R., Zalel Y., Davidson B., Kopolovic J., et al.: “CA 125 measurement and ultrasonography in borderline tumors of the ovary”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2000, 183, 541.

[20] Bozkurt M., Yumru A.E., Aral I.: “Evaluation of the importance of the serum levels of CA-125, CA15-3, CA-19-9, carcinoembryonic antigen and alpha fetoprotein for distinguishing benign and malignant adnexal masses and contribution of different test combinations to diagnostic accuracy”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2013, 34, 540.

[21] Milojkovic M., Hrgovic Z., Hrgovic I., Jonat W., Maass N., Bukovi D.: “Significance of CA 125 serum level in discrimination between benign and malignant masses in the pelvis”. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., 2004, 269, 176.

[22] Gadducci A., Ferdeghini M., Prontera C., Moretti L., Mariani G., Bianchi R., et al.: “The concomitant determination of different tumor markers in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and benign ovarian masses: relevance for differential diagnosis”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1992, 44, 147.

[23] Kikkawa F., Nawa A., Kajiyama H., Shibata K., Ino K., Nomura S.: “Clinical characteristics and prognosis of mucinous tumors of the ovary”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2006, 103, 171.