Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jul;9(3):168-173.
doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1721192. Epub 2021 Mar 19.

Retrospective Analysis of Factors Affecting Recurrence in Borderline Ovarian Tumors

Mariam Anjum Ifthikar  1 , Anupama Rajanbabu  1 , Indu R Nair  2 , Vinita Murali  3 , Anjaly S Nair  4
Affiliations

Retrospective Analysis of Factors Affecting Recurrence in Borderline Ovarian Tumors

Mariam Anjum Ifthikar et al. South Asian J Cancer. 2020 Jul.

Abstract

Background Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) are an intermediate form of neoplasia, between benign and malignant. The aim of this retrospective analysis is to evaluate the clinicopathological characteristic profile of BOTs and to determine the predictors of recurrence in BOTs. Methods A retrospective review of all patients diagnosed, treated, and followed up for BOTs between 2010 and 2017 at Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala, India, was conducted. Clinicopathological details and details of management, outcome, and survival were retrieved, and data were analyzed descriptively and for survival. Results A total of 103 patients were identified. During the median follow-up of 46.0 months, 15 (14.6%) patients developed recurrent disease, 6 (5.82%) had recurrence with progression to invasive carcinoma, and 9 had recurrent disease with borderline or benign histology. Mucinous tumors were found to have more recurrences than serous BOT (17.8 vs. 12.3%). Disease-related deaths (5/103 [4.9%]) were observed only in patients with progression to invasive carcinoma. Univariate analysis indicated that staging surgery was the most important prognostic factor that affected the disease-free survival ([DFS] 103 vs. 97 vs. 71 months, respectively, for complete staging vs. fertility-preserving staging vs. conservative surgery; p < 0.05). Conclusions Conservative surgery was associated with a higher risk of recurrence. Fertility-preserving staging surgery is an acceptable option in younger patients. The overall survival is not affected by the mode of surgery.

Keywords: borderline ovarian tumors; implants; low malignant potential; predictors; progression to invasive carcinoma; recurrence; reproductive outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

None
Anupama Rajanbabu, MD, MRCOG
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Kaplan–Meier plot: survival probability by the type of surgery with conservative surgery (c), comprehensive staging (s), and fertility-sparing surgery (sf) statistically significant.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier plot: overall survival of the surgical intervention group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Skírnisdóttir I, Garmo H, Wilander E, Holmberg L. Borderline ovarian tumors in Sweden 1960-2005: trends in incidence and age at diagnosis compared to ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer. 2008;123(08):1897–1901. - PubMed
    1. Tropé C, Kaern J. Management of borderline tumors of the ovary: state of the art. Semin Oncol. 1998;25(03):372–380. - PubMed
    1. Sherman M E, Mink P J, Curtis R et al.Survival among women with borderline ovarian tumors and ovarian carcinoma: a population-based analysis. Cancer. 2004;100(05):1045–1052. - PubMed
    1. Morris C R, Liu L, Rodriguez A O, Cress R D, Snipes K. Epidemiologic features of borderline ovarian tumors in California: a population-based study. Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24(04):665–674. - PubMed
    1. Arbeitsgmeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group . du Bois A, Ewald-Riegler N, de Gregorio N. Borderline tumours of the ovary: a cohort study of the arbeitsgmeinschaft gynäkologische onkologie (AGO) study group. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(08):1905–1914. - PubMed