Advertisement

Histologic, Nuclear, and Stromal Grading

  • Hugh R. K. Barber

Abstract

According to Decker and coworkers, within a given stage of ovarian epithelial carcinoma, regardless of the histologic cell type, the increasingly higher grades have an increasingly poorer prognosis. This finding suggests that more intensive therapy be considered for all patients with ovarian epithelial carcinomas than is currently undertaken. Decker also restated that epithelial ovarian cancer has always been difficult to treat successfully. The concept of a “scale of malignancy” was suggested by Virchow as long ago as 1858, but its application to ovarian carcinoma classification systems has not been implemented. Reports by Decker have demonstrated the value of grading tumors for prognostic significance, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) has now recognized that grading has value in the classification of carcinoma of the endometrium. It is anticipated that increased attention will be directed to the grading of ovarian cancers. Barber and associates reported on histologic and nuclear grading and stromal reactions as indices for prognosis in ovarian cancer. That report provides the basis for this chapter.

Keywords

Ovarian Cancer Plasma Cell Histologic Grade Ovarian Carcinoma Epithelial Ovarian Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Barber HRK, Sommers SC, Snyder R, Kwon T: Histologic and nuclear grading and stromal reactions as indices for prognosis in ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 121: 795, 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Broders AC: Carcinoma: grading and practical application. Arch Pathol 2: 376, 1926.Google Scholar
  3. Chabon AB, Takeuchi SJ, Sommers SC: Histologic differences in breast carcinoma of Japanese and American women. Cancer 33: 1577, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Decker DG, Malkasian GD, Jr, Taylor WF: Prognostic importance of histologic grading in ovarian cancer: symposium on ovarian carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 42: 1, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. Dyson JL, Beilby JO, Steele SJ: Factors influencing survival in carcinoma of the ovary. Br J Cancer 25: 237, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Long ME, Sommers SC: Staging, grading and histochemistry of ovarian epithelial tumors. Clin Obstet Gynecol 12: 937, 1969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Long ME, Taylor HC Jr: Nucleolar variability in human neoplastic cells. Ann NY Acad Sci 63: 1095, 1956.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Malkasian GD Jr, Decker DG, Webb MJ: Histology of epithelial tumors of the ovary: clinical usefulness and prognostic significance of the histologic classification and grading. Semin Oncol 2: 191, 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Malloy JJ, Dooherty MB, Welch JS, Hunt HB: Papillary ovarian tumors: I Benign tumors and serous and mucinous cystadenocarcinomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 93: 867, 1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Report presented by the Cancer Committee to the General Assembly of FIGO: New York, April 1970. Int J Gynecol Obstet 9: 112, 1971.Google Scholar
  11. Silverberg E: Gynecologic Cancer: Statistical and Epidemiological Information. Professional Education Publication. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, 1975.Google Scholar
  12. Sommers SC, Long ME: Ovarian carcinoma: pathology, staging, grading and prognosis. Bull NY Acad Med 49: 858, 1973.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugh R. K. Barber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyLenox Hill HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations