Implementation of a new histological grading system in ovarian mucinous carcinomas and its association with the risk of recurrence: a retrospective cohort study
Keywords:
Ovarian neoplasms, Cystadenocarcinoma, Adenocarcinoma, mucinous, Neoplasm grading, Prognosis, Ovarian mucinous carcinoma, Grade, Grading, Infiltrative growth, Naples prognostic scoreAbstract
BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the prognostic significance of the Growth-Based Grade (GBG) system compared to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grading in ovarian mucinous carcinoma (OMC). Although FIGO grading is commonly used, its prognostic value remains controversial. The GBG system, which classifies tumors as low-grade (G1) or high-grade (G2) based on the proportion of infiltrative growth, has emerged as a potential prognostic tool.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic significance of GBG and compare it with FIGO grading in OMC.
DESIGN AND SETTING: This retrospective cohort study included 37 women with OMC treated at a single institution between 2009 and 2022.
METHODS: GBG was determined by a histopathological review of hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides. Clinical and demographic data, including FIGO stage, CA125 levels, surgical procedures, and follow-up information, were collected. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to assess the associations between GBG grading, FIGO stage, and survival outcomes.
RESULTS: GBG 2 tumors were significantly associated with elevated CA125 levels, advanced FIGO stage (III), and bilaterality. Multivariate analysis showed that GBG 2 conferred a 5.4-fold higher risk of recurrence compared with GBG 1. While FIGO stage III was predictive of overall survival, FIGO grading was not associated with recurrence risk.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests a potential prognostic value of the GBG system in mucinous ovarian carcinoma. GBG 2 tumors showed a higher risk of recurrence than GBG 1 tumors, whereas FIGO grading showed no such association. These findings align with previous reports and should be interpreted in the context of additional studies to clarify the system’s clinical relevance.
Downloads
References
Seidman JD, Horkayne-Szakaly I, Haiba M, et al. The histologic type and stage distribution of ovarian carcinomas of surface epithelial origin. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2004;23(1):41–4. PMID: 14668549; https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pgp.0000101080.35393.16.
Prat J, D’Angelo E, Espinosa I. Ovarian carcinomas: at least five different diseases with distinct histological features and molecular genetics. Hum Pathol. 2018;80:11–27. Epub 2018 Jun 23. PMID: 29944973; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2018.06.018.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines®): ovarian cancer/fallopian tube cancer/primary peritoneal cancer. Version 3.2025 [Internet]. Plymouth Meeting (PA): NCCN; 2025. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ovarian.pdf.
Morice P, Gouy S, Leary A. Mucinous ovarian carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(13):1256–66. PMID: 30917260; https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1813254.
Peres LC, Cushing-Haugen KL, Köbel M, et al. Invasive epithelial ovarian cancer survival by histotype and disease stage. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(1):60–8. PMID: 29718305; https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy071.
Sørensen SS, Mosgaard BJ. Combination of cancer antigen 125 and carcinoembryonic antigen can improve ovarian cancer diagnosis. Dan Med Bull. 2011;58(11):A4331. PMID: 22047929.
Pinto PB, Derchain SF, Andrade LA. Metastatic mucinous carcinomas in the ovary: a practical approach to diagnosis related to gross aspects and to immunohistochemical evaluation. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2012;31(4):313–8. PMID: 22653343; https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e31823f844d.
Algera MD, Van Driel WJ, Van de Vijver KK, Kruitwagen RFPM, Lok CAR. Surgical treatment for clinical early-stage expansile and infiltrative mucinous ovarian cancer: can staging surgeries safely be omitted? Curr Opin Oncol. 2022;34(5):497–503. PMID: 35838205; https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0000000000000862.
McCluggage WG, Judge MJ, Clarke BA, et al.; International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Data set for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Mod Pathol. 2015;28(8):1101–22. PMID: 26089092; https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2015.77.
Lee KR, Scully RE. Mucinous tumors of the ovary: a clinicopathologic study of 196 borderline tumors (of intestinal type) and carcinomas, including an evaluation of 11 cases with ‘pseudomyxoma peritonei’. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(11):1447–64. PMID: 11075847; https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200011000-00001.
Busca A, Nofech-Mozes S, Olkhov-Mitsel E, et al. Histological grading of ovarian mucinous carcinoma: an outcome-based analysis of traditional and novel systems. Histopathology. 2020;77(1):26–34. PMID: 31782197; https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14039.
Shimizu Y, Kamoi S, Amada S, Akiyama F, Silverberg SG. Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma: testing of a proposed system in a series of 461 patients with uniform treatment and follow-up. Cancer. 1998;82(5):893–901. PMID: 9486579; https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19980301)82:5<893::aid-cncr14>3.0.co;2-w.
Momeni-Boroujeni A, Song H, Irshaid L, et al. Outcome-based validation of confluent/expansile versus infiltrative pattern assessment and growth-based grading in ovarian mucinous carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2022;46(9):1250–9. PMID: 35363158; https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001895.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). World Health Organization classification of tumours, volume 4: female genital tumours. 5th ed. Lyon: IARC; 2020.
Heyward QD, Nasioudis D, Cory L, et al. Lymphadenectomy for early-stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31(1):104–9. PMID: 33243777; https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001817.
Nasioudis D, Chapman-Davis E, Witkin SS, Holcomb K. Prognostic significance of lymphadenectomy and prevalence of lymph node metastasis in clinically-apparent stage I endometrioid and mucinous ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144(2):414–9. PMID: 27908528; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.11.038.
Kim SR, Madariaga A, Hogen L, et al. Impact of lymphadenectomy and intra-operative tumor rupture on survival in early-stage mucinous ovarian cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2023;33(5):755–60. PMID: 36914170; https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2023-004327.
Algera MD, Van de Vijver KK, Van Driel WJ, et al. Outcomes of patients with early stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma: a Dutch population-based cohort study comparing expansile and infiltrative subtypes. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2024;34(5):722–9. PMID: 38460968; https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2023-004955.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 São Paulo Medical Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
