A clinical study of borderline ovarian tumor: The significance of microinvasion.
- Author:
Kwang Beom LEE
1
;
Jong Min LEE
;
Chan Yong PARK
;
Hyun Yee CHO
Author Information
1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gachon Medical School, Inchon, Korea. kgo02@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Borderline ovarian tumor;
Microinvasion
- MeSH:
Classification;
Disease-Free Survival;
Female;
Hospital Records;
Humans;
Menopause;
Mucins;
Retrospective Studies;
Survival Rate
- From:Korean Journal of Gynecologic Oncology
2005;16(3):189-194
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To identify the clinical features, survival rate, and prognostic factors of the borderline ovarian tumor. METHODS: Data on 48 patients with borderline ovarian tumor were analyzed with regard to histologic type, age, staging, operation method, tumor size, preoperative CA 125 level, menopause status and presence of stromal microinvasion. Most informations were obtained from hospital record and were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: There were 43 patients with stage I and 5 with stage III by FIGO classification. The mean age was 47.3 years (range 17-84). The mean size of tumor between patients with serous tumor and patients with mucinous tumor was 12.3 cm and 17.8 cm, respectively, and there was statistical difference between the two groups (p<0.05). There was no statistical difference in preoperative elevated CA 125 levels between patients with serous tumor and patients with mucinous tumor (p>0.05), and no difference between premenopausal group and postmenopausal group (p>0.05), but difference between stage I patients and stage III patients (p<0.05). There was statistical difference in disease free survival between stage I patients and stage III patients (p<0.05). But, there was no difference in the disease free survival among stage I patients according to operation method (p>0.05), and no difference among stage III patients according to operation method (>0.05). There was no statistical difference in stage between patients with microinvasive tumor and patients without microinvasive tumor (p>0.05). And there was no difference in disease free survival between patients with microinvasive tumor and patients without microinvasive tumor (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The FIGO stage is the prognostic factor in the borderline ovarian tumor. The implication of microinvasion may need to be evaluated further.
