Histopathologic Grading

  • Junzo Kigawa
  • Tsunehisa Kaku
  • Toru Sugiyama
  • Steven G. Silverberg


Grading of epithelial ovarian carcinoma has always been somewhat problematic, with different systems proposed for different histopathologic types. Clear cell carcinoma (CCC) has been the most difficult to grade in a reproducible and clinically meaningful manner. A recently proposed “universal grading system” for all types of ovarian epithelial carcinoma has proven to be both reproducible and clinically relevant for all types except CCC, but problems have arisen with CCC, probably because mitotic activity as defined in this system is uniformly low in CCC and nuclear atypia (also a feature to be considered in the final grade) in CCC is rarely low. A newer system based on architectural features alone for the grading of CCC has been proposed, but has not yet been validated by independent observers. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends that all CCCs should be considered high grade carcinomas.


Ovarian Epithelial Cancer Grade System Mitotic Activity Clear Cell Carcinoma Nuclear Atypia 
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.


  1. 1.
    Silverberg SG (2000) Histopathologic grading of ovarian carcinoma: a review and proposal. Int J Gynecol Pathol 19:7–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shimizu Y, Kamoi S, Amada S, Hasumi K et al (1998) Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma: 1. Prognostic significance of histopathologic features – problems involved in the architectural grading system. Gynecol Oncol 70:2–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shimizu Y, Kamoi S, Amada S et al (1998) Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma: testing of a proposed system in a series of 461 patients with uniform treatment and follow-up. Cancer 82:893–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ishioka S, Sagae S, Terasawa K et al (2000) Comparison of the usefulness between a new universal grading system for epithelial ovarian cancer and the FIGO grading system. Gynecol Oncol 89:447–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryu SY, Park SI, Nam BH et al (2009) Prognostic significance of histologic grade in clear-cell carcinoma of the ovary: a retrospective study of Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group. Ann Oncol 20:1032–1036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yamamoto S, Kasajima A, Takano M et al (2011) Validation of the histological grading for ovarian clear cell carcinoma: a retrospective multi-institutional study by the Japan Clear Cell Carcinoma Study Group. Int J Gynecol Pathol 30:129–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Min K-W, Park MH, Hong SR, Lee H et al (2013) Clear cell carcinomas of the ovary: a multi-institutional study 0f 129 cases in Korea with prognostic significance of Emi1 and Galactin-3. Int J Gynecol Pathol 32:3–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yamamoto S, Tsuda H, Shimazaki H et al (2012) histological grading of ovarian clear cell carcinoma: proposal for a simple and reproducible grouping system based on tumor growth architecture. Int J Gynecol Pathol 31:116–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herringyon CS, Young RH (eds) (2014) WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. International Agency for Research on Cancer, LyonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junzo Kigawa
    • 1
  • Tsunehisa Kaku
    • 2
  • Toru Sugiyama
    • 3
  • Steven G. Silverberg
    • 4
  1. 1.Matsue City HospitalMatsueJapan
  2. 2.Department of Health SciencesDepartment of Health Sciences Graduate School of Medical SciencesFukuokaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyIwate Medical University School of MedicineMoriokaJapan
  4. 4.Department of PathologyUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations