A novel algorithm for better distinction of primary mucinous ovarian carcinomas and mucinous carcinomas metastatic to the ovary.
Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous
/ pathology
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Algorithms
Carcinoma, Signet Ring Cell
/ pathology
Databases, Factual
Decision Support Techniques
Diagnosis, Differential
Female
Humans
Middle Aged
Netherlands
Nomograms
Ovarian Neoplasms
/ pathology
Predictive Value of Tests
Registries
Reproducibility of Results
Tumor Burden
Algorithm
Colorectal carcinoma
Metastasis
Mucinous ovarian carcinoma
Journal
Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology
ISSN: 1432-2307
Titre abrégé: Virchows Arch
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9423843
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
16
05
2018
accepted:
03
12
2018
revised:
21
11
2018
pubmed:
12
1
2019
medline:
10
4
2019
entrez:
12
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Primary mucinous ovarian carcinomas (MOC) are notoriously difficult to distinguish from mucinous carcinomas metastatic to the ovary (mMC). Studies performed on small cohorts reported algorithms based on tumor size and laterality to aid in distinguishing MOC from mMC. We evaluated and improved these by performing a large-scale, nationwide search in the Dutch Pathology Registry. All registered pathology reports fulfilling our search criteria concerning MOC in the Netherlands from 2000 to 2011 were collected. Age, histology, laterality, and size were extracted. An existing database covering the same timeline containing tumors metastatic to the ovary was used, extracting all mMC, age, size, laterality, and primary tumor location. Existing algorithms were applied to our cohort. Subsequently, an algorithm based on tumor histology, laterality, and a nomogram based on age and size was created for differentiating MOC and mMC. We identified 735 MOC and 1018 mMC. Patients with MOC were significantly younger and MOC were significantly larger and more often unilateral than mMC. Signet ring cell carcinomas were rarely primary. Our algorithm used signet ring cell histology, bilaterality, and a nomogram integrating patient age and tumor size to diagnose mMC. Sensitivity and specificity for mMC was 90.1% and 59.0%, respectively. Applying existing algorithms on our cohort yielded a far lower sensitivity. The algorithm described here using tumor histology, laterality, size, and patient age has higher sensitivity but lower specificity compared to earlier algorithms and aids in indicating tumor origin, but for conclusive diagnosis, careful integration of morphology, immunohistochemistry, and clinical and imaging data is recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30631934
doi: 10.1007/s00428-018-2504-0
pii: 10.1007/s00428-018-2504-0
pmc: PMC6515884
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
289-296Subventions
Organisme : KWF Kankerbestrijding
ID : KUN 2014-6613
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Am J Surg Pathol. 1999 Jun;23(6):617-35
pubmed: 10366144
Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 Mar;27(3):281-92
pubmed: 12604884
Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 Mar;27(3):303-10
pubmed: 12604886
Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 May;27(5):650-7
pubmed: 12717249
Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 Jul;27(7):985-93
pubmed: 12826891
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2004 Jan;23(1):52-7
pubmed: 14668551
Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Apr;93(1):87-91
pubmed: 15047218
Histopathology. 2005 Sep;47(3):231-47
pubmed: 16115224
Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Apr;101(1):97-101
pubmed: 16278010
Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Apr;101(1):152-7
pubmed: 16300822
Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 Feb;30(2):177-84
pubmed: 16434891
Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 May;30(5):551-9
pubmed: 16699309
Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 Sep;30(9):1130-9
pubmed: 16931958
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1087-91
pubmed: 16980149
Mod Pathol. 2006 Nov;19(11):1421-8
pubmed: 16980943
Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 Nov;30(11):1483-4; author reply 1484-5
pubmed: 17063093
Cell Oncol. 2007;29(1):19-24
pubmed: 17429138
Am J Surg Pathol. 2007 Jun;31(6):854-69
pubmed: 17527072
Stat Methods Med Res. 2007 Jun;16(3):219-42
pubmed: 17621469
Am J Surg Pathol. 2008 Jan;32(1):128-38
pubmed: 18162780
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2008 Apr;27(2):182-90
pubmed: 18317225
Am J Surg Pathol. 2008 Sep;32(9):1373-9
pubmed: 18670351
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):721-7
pubmed: 20338724
Am J Surg Pathol. 1991 May;15(5):415-29
pubmed: 2035736
Am Surg. 2013 Nov;79(11):1171-6
pubmed: 24165252
Virchows Arch. 2015 Jul;467(1):79-86
pubmed: 25894432
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Sep;25(7):1208-15
pubmed: 25978291
Ann Diagn Pathol. 2015 Aug;19(4):249-52
pubmed: 26059401
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2016 May;35(3):191-208
pubmed: 26535987
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Mar;40(3):419-32
pubmed: 26551622
Prev Sci. 2018 Apr;19(3):284-294
pubmed: 27040106
Br J Cancer. 2017 Aug 22;117(5):604-611
pubmed: 28728167
Oncotarget. 2017 May 18;8(31):50510-50520
pubmed: 28881579
BMJ. 2018 Mar 9;360:k949
pubmed: 29523557
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1997 Jan;16(1):1-9
pubmed: 8986525