Preinvasive Lesions in Gynaecology – Ovary

Czech version

Authors: R. Feranec; L. Mouková
Authors‘ workplace: Oddělení gynekologické onkologie, Masarykův onkologický ústav, Brno
Published in: Klin Onkol 2013; 26(Supplementum): 54-55

Overview

In comparison to malignant tumors of vulva, vagina, cervix and uterine corpus, clear morphologic and molecular genetic features of precursor lesions of ovarian carcinoma have not been defined yet. We can see an effort to describe preinvasive lesions to allow diagnostics and treatment prior to development of invasive ovarian cancer. This tendency is magnified by the fact that ovarian carcinomas have the highest mortality from all gynecological malignancies. Currently, reports confirming different morphology, pathogenesis and molecular alterations in heterogeneous group of ovarian carcinomas have been described. There is a tendency to divide epithelial malignant tumors into two groups. Low‑ grade ovarian serous carcinoma, low‑ grade endometrioid, clear‑ cell, mucinous ovarian cancers and Brenner tumors of ovary are categorized as type I ovarian tumors. High‑grade serous carcinoma, undifferentiated carcinomas and malignant mixed mesodermal tumors of the ovary (MMMTs) belong to type II tumors. A potential precursor lesion of high‑grade serous ovarian cancer has been defined – serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma.

Key words:
preinvasive lesion – ovarian cancer – serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC)

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Submitted:
11. 9. 2013

Accepted:
9. 10. 2013

Sources

1. Kurman RJ, Shih IeM. Pathogenesis of ovarian cancer: lessons from morphology and molecular biology and their clinical implications. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2008; 27(2): 151– 160.

2. Shih IeM, Kurman RJ. Ovarian tumorigenesis: a proposed model based on morphological and molecular genetic analysis. Am J Pathol 2004; 164(5): 1511– 1518.

3. Lynch HT, Casey MJ, Snyder CL et al. Hereditary ovarian carcinoma: Heterogeneity, molecular genetics, pathology, and management. Mol Oncol 2009; 3(2): 97– 137.

4. Shaw PA, McLaughlin JR, Zweemer RP et al. Histopathologic features of genetically determined ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002; 21(4): 407– 411.

5. Dubeau L. The cell of origin of ovarian epithelial tumours. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9(12): 1191– 1197.

6. Chovanec J. Současná léčba karcinomu ovaria. Acta medicinae 2012; 1(2): 54– 56.

7. Stirling D, Evans D, Pichert G et al. Screening for familial ovarian cancer: failure of current protocols to detect ovarian cancer at an early stage according to the international federation of gynekology and obstetrics system. J Clin Oncol 2005; 24(23): 5588– 5595.

8. Gaarenstroom KN, van der Hiel B, Tollenaar RA et al. Efficacy of screening women at high risk of hereditary ovarian cancer: results of an 11‑year kohort study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006; 16 (Suppl 1): 54– 59.

9. van der Velde NM, Mourits MJ, Arts HJ et al. Time to stop ovarian cancer screening in BRCA1/ 2 mutation carriers? Int J Cancer 2009; 124(4): 919– 923.