The role of intratumoral lymphovascular density in distinguishing primary from secondary mucinous ovarian tumors
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
5
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2014
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
HOSPITAL CLINICAS, UNIV SAO PAULO
Autores
BACCHI, Carlos E.
FERREIRA, Cristiane R.
Citação
CLINICS, v.69, n.10, p.660-665, 2014
Resumo
OBJECTIVE: Ovarian mucinous metastases commonly present as the first sign of the disease and are capable of simulating primary tumors. Our aim was to investigate the role of intratumoral lymphatic vascular density together with other surgical-pathological features in distinguishing primary from secondary mucinous ovarian tumors. METHODS: A total of 124 cases of mucinous tumors in the ovary (63 primary and 61 metastatic) were compared according to their clinicopathological features and immunohistochemical profiles. The intratumoral lymphatic vascular density was quantified by counting the number of vessels stained by the D2-40 antibody. RESULTS: Metastases occurred in older patients and were associated with a higher proportion of tumors smaller than 10.0 cm; bilaterality; extensive necrosis; extraovarian extension; increased expression of cytokeratin 20, CDX2, CA19.9 and MUC2; and decreased expression of cytokeratin 7, CA125 and MUC5AC. The lymphatic vascular density was increased among primary tumors. However, after multivariate analysis, the best predictors of a secondary tumor were a size of 10.0 cm or less, bilaterality and cytokeratin 7 negativity. Lack of MUC2 expression was an important factor excluding metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: The higher intratumoral lymphatic vascular density in primary tumors when compared with secondary lesions suggests differences in the microenvironment. However, considering the differential diagnosis, the best discriminator of a secondary tumor is the combination of tumor size, laterality and the pattern of expression of cytokeratin 7 and MUC2.
Palavras-chave
Mucinous Ovarian Tumors, Ovarian Metastasis, Lymphatic Vascular Density, D2-40, Immunohistochemistry
Referências
- Chu PG, 2000, MODERN PATHOL, V13, P962, DOI 10.1038/modpathol.3880175
- D'Angelo E, 2010, CLIN TRANSL ONCOL, V12, P783, DOI 10.1007/s12094-010-0599-0
- Diniz PM, 2011, CLINICS, V66, P73, DOI 10.1590/S1807-59322011000100013
- Fadare O, 2008, INT J GYNECOL PATHOL, V27, P483, DOI 10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181742d7c
- Goes RS, 2012, INT J GYNECOL PATHOL, V31, P8, DOI 10.1097/PGP.0b013e31821f4de2
- Hall FT, 2003, ARCH OTOLARYNGOL, V129, P716, DOI 10.1001/archotol.129.7.716
- Ji HX, 2002, INT J GYNECOL PATHOL, V21, P391, DOI 10.1097/01.PGP.0000035808.01856.77
- Kawamura L, 2010, WORLD J SURG ONCOL, V8, DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-8-89
- Kurman RJ, 2011, HUM PATHOL, V42, P918, DOI 10.1016/j.humpath.2011.03.003
- Lee KR, 2003, AM J SURG PATHOL, V27, P281, DOI 10.1097/00000478-200303000-00001
- Lee MJ, 2003, MODERN PATHOL, V16, P403, DOI 10.1097/01.MP0000067683.84284.66
- Leen SLS, 2012, J CLIN PATHOL, V65, P591, DOI 10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200162
- McCluggage WG, 2005, HISTOPATHOLOGY, V47, P231, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02194.x
- Musrap N, 2012, MOL CANCER RES, V10, P1254, DOI 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-12-0353
- Muyldermans K, 2013, EUR J CANCER, V49, P1600, DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.004
- Prat J, 2005, MODERN PATHOL, V18, pS99, DOI 10.1038/modpathol.3800312
- Seidman JD, 2003, AM J SURG PATHOL, V27, P985, DOI 10.1097/00000478-200307000-00014
- Silverberg SG, 2000, INT J GYNECOL PATHOL, V19, P7, DOI 10.1097/00004347-200001000-00003
- Stacker SA, 2002, NAT REV CANCER, V2, P573, DOI 10.1038/nrc863
- Sundar SS, 2006, BRIT J CANCER, V94, P1650, DOI 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603144
- Vang R, 2006, AM J SURG PATHOL, V30, P1130
- Vang R, 2006, PATHOL CASE REV, V11, P18, DOI 10.1097/01.pcr.0000196570.96459.9e
- Yemelyanova AV, 2008, AM J SURG PATHOL, V32, P128
- Young RH, 2006, ADV ANAT PATHOL, V13, P205, DOI 10.1097/01.pap.0000213038.85704.e4
- Zaganelli Fabricia L, 2010, Int J Gynecol Cancer, V20, P1225, DOI 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181ead337