A CHANGE IN THE CELLULAR COMPOSITION OF THE FALLOPIAN TUBE EPITHELIUM AS A PREDICTOR FOR HIGH-GRADE SEROUS OVARIAN CARCINOMA


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Objective. To study whether the development of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) can be predicted using an estimate of changes in the cellular composition of the fallopian tube epithelium (secretory cell expansion (SCE) and secretory cell outgrowth (SCOUT)) depending on patients’ age. Subjects and methods. Examinations were made in 287 patients with benign extraovarian pathological changes (n = 70), serous ovarian cystadenomas/cystadenofibromas (n = 75), serous borderline ovarian tumors (n = 73), and HGSOC (n = 69). Morphological, immunohistochemical (the markers p53 and Ki-67), and statistical (the Kruskal-Wallis test, the Mann-Whitney test, the pairwise linear regression method with an estimate of the tightness of Pearson’s correlation, and discriminant analysis) studies were used to investigate 287fallopian tubes (3-4 fimbrial fragments). Results. The increase in SCE and SCOUT with age was observedfor all studied pathological changes (p < 0.001), although the number of SCE in all the groups was higher than that of SCOUT; and the correlation between age and the number of SCE was stronger than that of SCOUT (Pearson’s correlation coefficients, 0.86 and 0.35, respectively). Comparing the groups of patients with different diseases revealed that the number of SCE and SCOUT in the HGSOC group was significantly higher than that in the other groups (p < 0.001). The predictive formula HGSOC = 0.22*SCE + 0.055*SCOUT - 0.068*AGE + 0.72) was derived. A woman with HGSOC and more than 1.663 belonged to a group at high risk for ovarian serous carcinomas; a woman with less than 1.663 formed a low-risk group. To avoid false-negative results, the age limit for applying the formula was proposed to be 47 years of age. Conclusion. The findings have led to the conclusion that age is an important independent risk factor for HGSOC. In addition, SCE as an isolated marker has a greater efficiency than SCOUT; however, a joint estimation of SCE, SCOUT, and patients’ age has the highest efficiency, as demonstrated in the present study using the proposed prognostic formula. The overall percentage of the original observations correctly classified by the proposed formula (diagnostic eff iciency) was 98.2%. The sensitivity of the used function was 92.8%; the specif icity was 100.0%.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

A. V Asaturova

Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: a_asaturova@oparina4.ru
PhD, senior scientific researcher of department 1-st anatomic pathology Moscow 117997, Ac. Oparina str. 4, Russia

Leila Vladimirovna Adamyan

Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: l_adamyan@oparina4.ru
MD, professor, academician of RAS; deputy director on science, head of department of operative gynecology Moscow 117997, Ac. Oparina str. 4, Russia

L. S Ezhova

Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: l_ezhova@oparina4.ru
PhD, senior scientific researcher of 1st anatomic pathology department Moscow 117997, Ac. Oparina str. 4, Russia

Fayzullina Nafisa Munavarovna

Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: n_faizullina@oparina4.ru
PhD, senior scientific researcher of 1st anatomic pathology department Moscow 117997, Ac. Oparina str. 4, Russia

Khabas Grigory Nikolaevich

Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: g_khabas@oparina4.ru
Head of the Department of innovative oncogynecology and surgery Moscow 117997, Ac. Oparina str. 4, Russia

Sannikova Maya Viktorovna

Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: m_sannikova@oparina4.ru
scientific researcher of the Department of innovative oncogynecology and surgery Moscow 117997, Ac. Oparina str. 4, Russia

References

  1. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2016; 66(1): 7-30.
  2. Асатурова А.В., Адамян Л.В., Ежова Л.С., Файзуллина Н.М. Карциномы яичника с переходноклеточным фенотипом: иммуногистохимическая характеристика, патогенез и место в классификации. Онкогинекология. 2016; 2: 37-45.
  3. Bowtell D.D., Böhm S., Ahmed A.A., Aspuria P.J., Bast R.C., Beral V. et al. Rethinking ovarian cancer II: reducing mortality from high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2015; 15(11): 668-79.
  4. Асатурова А.В., Ежова Л.С., Файзуллина Н.М., Санникова М.В., Хабас Г.Н. Морфологическая и иммуногистохимическая характеристика изменений слизистой оболочки маточной трубы при эпителиальных опухолях яичника. Архив патологии. 2016; 78(2): 3-7.
  5. Ohman A.W., Hasan N., Dinulescu D.M. Advances in tumor screening, imaging, and avatar technologies for high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Front. Oncol. 2014; 4: 322.
  6. Kurman R.J., Shih Ie.M. The dualistic model of ovarian carcinogenesis: revisited, revised, and expanded. Am. J. Pathol. 2016; 186(4): 733-47.
  7. Wang Y., Li L., Wang Y., Tang S.N., Zheng W. Fallopian tube secretory cell expansion: a sensitive biomarker for ovarian serous carcinogenesis. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2015; 7(10): 2082-90.
  8. Wang Y., Wang Y., Li D., Li L., Zhang W, Yao G. et al. IMP3 signatures of fallopian tube: a risk for pelvic serous cancers. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2014; 7: 49.
  9. Плавинский С.Л. Биостатистика: планирование, обработка и представление результатов биомедицинских исследований при помощи системы SAS. СПб.: СПбМАПО; 2005. 506с.
  10. Hunn J., Rodriguez G.C. Ovarian cancer: etiology, risk factors, and epidemiology. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 55(1): 3-23.
  11. Chene G., Ouellet V., Rahimi K., Barres V., Meunier L., De Ladurantaye M. et al. Expression of stem cell markers in preinvasive tubal lesions of ovarian carcinoma. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015; 2015: 808531.
  12. Visvanathan K., Vang R., Shaw P., Gross A., Soslow R., Parkash V. et al. Diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma based on morphologic and immunohistochemical features: a reproducibility study. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2011; 35(11): 1766-75.
  13. Crum C.P., Drapkin R., Miron A., Ince T.A., Muto M., Kindelberger D.W., Lee Y. The distal fallopian tube: a new model for pelvic serous carcinogenesis. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007; 19(1): 3-9.
  14. Ning G., Bijron J.G., Yamamoto Y., Wang X., Howitt B.E., Herfs M. et al. The PAX2-null immunophenotype defines multiple lineages with common expression signatures in benign and neoplastic oviductal epithelium. J. Pathol. 2014; 234(4): 478-87.
  15. Quick C.M., Ning G., Bijron J., Laury A., Wei T.S., Chen E.Y. et al. PAX2-null secretory cell outgrowths in the oviduct and their relationship to pelvic serous cancer. Mod. Pathol. 2012; 25(3): 449-55.
  16. Folkins A.K., Jarboe E.A., Roh M.H., Crum C.P. Precursors to pelvic serous carcinoma and their clinical implications. Gynecol. Oncol. 2009; 113(3): 391-6.
  17. Li J., Fadare O., Xiang L., Kong B., Zheng W. Ovarian serous carcinoma: recent concepts on its origin and carcinogenesis. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2012; 5: 8.
  18. Mehra K., MehradM., Ning G., Drapkin R., McKeon F.D., Xian W. et al. STICS, SCOUTs and p53 signatures; a new language for pelvic serous carcinogenesis. Front. Biosci. (Elite Ed). 2011; 3: 625-34.
  19. АдамянЛ.В., Жорданиа К.И., Мартынов С.А., Данилов А.Ю., Козаченко А.В., Зурабиани З.Р, Ляшко Е.С., Николаева А.В., Липатенкова Ю.И., Кулабухова Е.А. Хирургическое лечение беременных с опухолями и опухолевидными образованиями яичников. Опухоли женской репродуктивной системы. 2011; 1: 76-9.
  20. Демидов В.Н., Гус А.И., Адамян Л.В., Липатенкова Ю.И. Эхография органов малого таза у женщин. Вып. 4: Пограничные опухоли, рак и редкие опухоли яичников. Практическое пособие. М.; 2005. 142с
  21. Адамян Л.В., Фанченко Н.Д., Алексеева М.Л., Новикова E.H., Андреева E.H. Диагностическая значимость определения онкомаркеров СА 125, СА 19,9, СЕАвгинекологии. Методические рекомендации. М.; 1994

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies