Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Borderline-Tumoren des Ovars

  • Chapter
Weiterbildung Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

  • 1882 Accesses

Zussamenfassung

Borderline-Tumoren des Ovars („tumors of low malignant potential“, LMP-Tumoren) stehen klinisch und morphologisch zwischen den benignen Tumoren und den invasiven Karzinomen. Wenn auch eine destruktive Stromainvasion fehlt, können eine Mikroinvasion sowie nichtinvasive und invasive peritoneale und lymphatische „Implantate“ vorhanden sein. Die serösen und muzinösen Subtypen machen zusammen 95% aus. Die operative Therapie der Borderline-Tumoren entspricht grundsätzlich derjenigen der invasiven Karzinome. Eine Lymphonodektomie gehört aber nicht dazu. Auf eine Hysterektomie kann verzichtet werden. Bei bestehendem Kinderwunsch kann im Einzelfall trotz erhöhten Rezidivrisikos eine ferti-litätserhaltende Operation durchgeführt werden. Die Sorgfalt der Operation, die offen oder laparoskopisch durchgeführt werden kann, ist für die Prognose wesentlich. Eine adjuvante systemische Therapie verbessert die Prognose nicht. Borderline-Tumoren haben eine deutlich bessere Prognose als invasive Karzinome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Young RH (2005) A brief history of the pathology of the gonads. Mod Pathol 18(Suppl 2):S3–SI7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hart WR (2005) Borderline epithelial tumors of the ovary. Mod Pathol 18(Suppl 2):S33–S50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Meinhold-Heerlein I, Hauptmann S (2014) The heterogeneity of ovarian cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289(2):237–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Meinhold-Heerlein I et al (2011) Die Heterogenität des Ovarialkarzinoms. Gynäkologe 44:708–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bois A du et al (2009) Borderline Tumors of the ovary - a systematic review. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 69:80783–3

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bois A du et al (2013) Borderline tumours of the ovary: a cohort study of the Arbeitsgmeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group. Eur J Cancer 49(8):1905–1914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fischerova D et al (2012) Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumors. Oncologist 17(12):1515–1533

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kurman RJ, Seidman JD, Shih IM (2005) Serous borderline tumours of the ovary. Histopathology 47(3)310–315

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kurman RJ, Shih le M (2010) The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol 34(3)433-:44–3

    Google Scholar 

  10. Katsube Y, Berg JW, Silverberg SG (1982) Epidemiologic pathology of ovarian tumors: a histopathologic review of primary ovarian neoplasms diagnosed in the Denver Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, 1 July-31 December 1969 and 1 July-31 December 1979. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1(1)3–16

    Google Scholar 

  11. Skirnisdottir I et al (2008) Borderline ovarian tumors in Sweden 19602005: trends in incidence and age at diagnosis compared to ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer 123(8):1897–1901

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bois A du et al (2009) Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeits-gemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d'lnvestigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de I'Ovaire (Gl- NECO). Cancer 115(6):1234–1244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Trope C et al (2009) Diagnosis and treatment of borderline ovarian neo- plasms„the state of the art". Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 30(5)471–482

    Google Scholar 

  14. Leeuwen FE van et al (2011) Risk of borderline and invasive ovarian tumours after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization in a large Dutch cohort. Hum Reprod 26(12)3456-:346–5

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hauptmann S et al (2014) Histological grading of epithelial ovarian cancer: review and recommendation. Pathologe

    Google Scholar 

  16. Meinhold-Heerlein I et al (2005) Molecular and prognostic distinction between serous ovarian carcinomas of varying grade and malignant potential. Oncogene 24(6):1053–1065

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Diebold J (2014) Serous ovarian tumors. Pathologe 35(4)314–321

    Google Scholar 

  18. Seidman JD, Kurman RJ (2000) Ovarian serous borderline tumors: a critical review of the literature with emphasis on prognostic indicators. Hum Pathol 31(5)339–557

    Google Scholar 

  19. Seidman JD, Cho KR, Ronnett BM et al (2011) Surface epithelial tumors of the ovary. In: Kurman RJ, Ellenson LH, Ronnett BM (eds) Blaustein's pathology of the female genital tract, 6. edn. Tokyo, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 680–772

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lee KR et al (2003) Tumors of the ovary and peritoneum. In:Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds) World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. IARC, Lyon, pp 113–202

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tinelli R et al (2006) Conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors: a review. Gynecol Oncol 100(1 ):185–191

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ardighieri L et al (2014) Mutational analysis of BRAF and KRAS in ovarian serous borderline (atypical proliferative) tumours and associated peritoneal implants. J Pathol 232(1 ):16–22

    Google Scholar 

  23. Seidman JD et al (2004) Borderline ovarian tumors: diverse contemporary viewpoints on terminology and diagnostic criteria with illustrative images. Hum Pathol 35(8):918–933

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shappell HW et al (2002) Diagnostic criteria and behavior of ovarian seromucinous (endocervical-type mucinous and mixed cell-type) tumors: atypical proliferative (borderline) tumors, intraepithelial, microinvasive, and invasive carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 26(12):1529–1541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Meriden Z et al (2011) Ovarian metastases of pancreaticobiliary tract adenocarcinomas: analysis of 35 cases, with emphasis on the ability of metastases to simulate primary ovarian mucinous tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 35(2):276–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Meinhold-Heerlein I et al (2013) Prognostische und prädiktive Marker des Ovarialkarzinoms. Gynakologe 46:386–391

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Braicu E (2014) Preoperative HE4 and ROMA values do not improve the CA125 diagnostic value for borderline tumors of the ovary (BOT) - a study of the TOC Consortium. J Ovarian Res 7:4–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Valentin L (1999) Prospective crossvalidation of Doppler ultrasound examination and gray-scale ultrasound imaging for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 14(4):273–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Valentin L et al (2001) Comparison of, pattern recognition' and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18(4)357–365

    Google Scholar 

  30. Timmerman D et al (1999) Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 13(1 ):11–16

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cadron I et al (2007) Management of borderline ovarian neoplasms. J Clin Oncol 25(20):2928–2937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Faluyi O et al (2010) Interventions for the treatment of borderline ovarian tumours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD00769–6

    Google Scholar 

  33. Prat J, De Nictolis M (2002) Serous borderline tumors of the ovary: a long-term follow-up study of 137 cases, including 18 with a micropapillary pattern and 20 with microinvasion. Am J Surg Pathol 26(9):1111–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gershenson DM et al (1998) Ovarian serous borderline tumors with invasive peritoneal implants. Cancer 82(6):1096–1103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Uzan C et al (2014) Prognostic factors for recurrence after conservative treatment in a series of 119 patients with stage I serous borderline tumors of the ovary. Ann Oncol 25(1 ):166–171

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kurman RJ, Trimble CL (1993) The behavior of serous tumors of low malignant potential: are they ever malignant? Int J Gynecol Pathol 12(2):120–127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Morice P et al (2003) Prognostic factors for patients with advanced stage serous borderline tumours of the ovary. Ann Oncol 14(4)592–598

    Google Scholar 

  38. Trope C et al (1993) Are borderline tumors of the ovary overtreated both surgically and systemically? A review of four prospective randomized trials including 253 patients with borderline tumors. Gynecol Oncol 51(2):236–243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kaern J, Trope CG, Abeler VM (1993) A retrospective study of 370 borderline tumors of the ovary treated at the Norwegian Radium Hospital from 1970 to 1982. A review of clini- copathologicfeatures and treatment modalities. Cancer 71(5):1810–1820

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Leake JF et al (1992) Long-term follow-up of serous ovarian tumors of low malignant potential. Gynecol Oncol 47(2):150–158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Camatte S et al (2004) Impact of surgical staging in patients with ma- croscopic „stage I" ovarian borderline tumours: analysis of a continuous series of 101 cases. Eur J Cancer 40(12):1842–1849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Odegaard E et al (2007) Surgery of borderline tumors of the ovary: retrospective comparison of shortterm outcome after laparoscopy or laparotomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86(5):620–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Morice P et al (2011) Recommendations of the Fertility Task Force of the European Society of Gynecologic Oncology about the conservative management of ovarian malignant tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21 (5):951 -963

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lee EJ et al (2006) Metastasis to sigmoid colon mucosa and submucosa from serous borderline ovarian tumor: response to hormone therapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16(Suppl 1 ):295–259

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hua K et al (2008) Estrogen and progestin regulate metastasis through the PI3K/AKT pathway in human ovarian cancer. Int J Oncol 33(5):959–967

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Trope CG, Kristensen G, Makar A (2000) Surgery for borderline tumor of the ovary. Semin Surg Oncol 19(1 ):69–75

    Google Scholar 

  47. Morice P (2006) Borderline tumours of the ovary and fertility. Eur J Cancer 42(2):149–158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Parker WH (2010) Bilateral oophorectomy versus ovarian conservation: effects on long-term women's health. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(2):161–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Parker WH et al (2005) Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 106(2):219–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Parker WH et al (2007) Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterecto- myfor benign disease. Clin Obstet Gynecol 50(2)554–361

    Google Scholar 

  51. Parker WH et al (2009) Effect of bilateral oophorectomy on women's long-term health. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 5(5)565–576

    Google Scholar 

  52. Parker WH et al (2007) Elective oophorectomy in the gynecological patient: when is it desirable? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 19(4)550–354

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen

    I. Meinhold-Heerlein

Authors
  1. I. Meinhold-Heerlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Klinikum Kassel, Frauenklinik, Kassel, Deutschland

    Thomas Dimpfl

  2. Universitätsklinik Ulm, Frauenklinik, Ulm, Deutschland

    Wolfgang Janni

  3. Landshut, Deutschland

    Rolf Kreienberg

  4. Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinik Kiel, Kiel, Deutschland

    Nicolai Maass

  5. Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Caritas-Krankenhaus St. Josef, Regensburg, Deutschland

    Olaf Ortmann

  6. Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland

    Thomas Strowitzki

  7. Klinik für Frauenheilkunde, Vivantes Klinikum Neuköln, Berlin, Deutschland

    Klaus Vetter

  8. Klinik für Geburtshilfe, Universitätsspital Zürich, USZ, Zürich, Schweiz

    Roland Zimmermann

  9. Pränatale Medizin, Endokrinologie und Osteologie, amedes experts Hamburg Facharzt-Zentrum für Kinderwunsch, Hamburg, Deutschland

    Barbara Sonntag

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meinhold-Heerlein, I. (2017). Borderline-Tumoren des Ovars. In: Dimpfl, T., et al. Weiterbildung Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49480-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49480-6_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-49479-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-49480-6

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation