Skip Navigation LinksHome > January 2000 - Volume 19 - Issue 1 > Histopathologic Grading of Ovarian Carcinoma: A Review and P...
International Journal of Gynecological Pathology:
Invited Reviews

Histopathologic Grading of Ovarian Carcinoma: A Review and Proposal

Silverberg, Steven G M.D.

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

From the Director of Anatomic Pathology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Steven G. Silverberg, Department of Pathology, University of Maryland Medical Center, 22 South Greene Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.

Collapse Box

Abstract

The histopathologic grade of ovarian epithelial carcinoma has generally been found to be of prognostic significance, but the grading system used has varied among published reports, and often has not been specified at all. The major proposed grading systems are reviewed, and a new system is proposed, which is modeled on the Nottingham system of breast cancer grading and is designed to be applied to all invasive epithelial carcinomas of the ovary. Results obtained in studies using this system are presented. When grading is compared with histopathologic typing of ovarian carcinoma, the latter is less valuable in predicting survival but better at predicting tumor responsiveness to chemotherapy, and can also suggest the chemotherapeutic agents to be used. Thus, both grade and type should be specified in the surgical pathology report for any ovarian carcinoma.

A little over a decade ago, I was invited to review the histologic prognostic factors in ovarian carcinoma for publication in an issue of Current Topics in Pathology(1). At that time, after a literature review comprising 21 series published between 1982 and 1986, and constituting more than 6,000 cases, I concluded that histologic grade was probably significant in the prognosis of cases in which platin-based treatment had not been used, and probably not significant in cases treated with what was at the time the more modern platin-based chemotherapeutic regimens. I noted, however, that it was difficult to interpret the results published in many of the reports for a number of reasons: 1.) Several publications at that time still included tumors of low malignant potential (borderline) among the carcinomas, and these would always improve the results for tumors interpreted as grade 1; 2.) In most reports, there was no specification of the grading system used, which in some series was architectural, in others cytologic (nuclear), in some both, but in the majority completely unspecified; 3.) The grading often was not done at the review level by a single pathologist, but was the product of multiple pathologists who initially saw the cases, often in more than one institution; and 4.) There was often an absence of uniform treatment within a single published series.

In preparation for the present review (to be published 11 years after the review cited above), it was interesting to survey the more recent literature to see if things had improved. In an admittedly cursory review of a relatively large series of ovarian carcinomas published within the past 2 years in which reference to tumor grading is made in the abstract, there is still a total lack of uniformity in how the grading system used is specified in the publications (Table 1). In the eight reports summarized in Table 1 (2–9), there is no specification of the grading system used in three of the reports, in two others there is only a vague comment that an architectural system or a combined architectural and cytologic system was used, in two the World Health Organization (WHO) system is specified, and in one the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) system was used. Given this wide disparity, it is probably no surprise that the results expressed for the significance of tumor grade to prognosis are also highly variable. In four of the quoted studies, grade was said to be significant, in another two it was significant only by univariate analysis, and in the remaining two (with the smallest numbers of cases), grade was not significant at all.

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools

These results suggest that at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, ovarian cancer grading is still performed haphazardly, with several systems and nonsystems used in different studies from different institutions, and with little unanimity as to whether histologic tumor grade is significant at all, and even less as to its significance compared with other histopathologic, immunohistochemical, morphometric, flow and image cytometric, and molecular studies. The purpose of this review is to summarize some of the grading systems that have been offered in recent years and to present a system recently developed by my colleagues and myself, with analysis of the results of application of this system to a large series of cases treated in a uniform manner at a single institution.

Back to Top | Article Outline

OVARIAN CANCER GRADING SYSTEMS USED HISTORICALLY

The grading systems for epithelial ovarian carcinoma used most commonly throughout the world have been those of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) (10) and of the World Health Organization (WHO) (11). The FIGO system is based on architectural features, and the grade depends on the ratio of glandular or papillary structures versus solid tumor growth within an individual tumor. In this system, grade 1 is equivalent to <5% solid tumor growth, grade 2 represents 5 to 50% solid growth, and grade 3 tumors are >50% solid. In the WHO system, on the other hand, the grade is assigned by the observer's impression of both architectural and cytologic features, but this is not defined in a quantitative manner. Thus, Brugghe and colleagues (12) have characterized this sort of system as the “intuitive” method. It is noteworthy that although both FIGO and WHO have their own grading systems, neither is included in the ovarian cancer staging system of either FIGO (10) or WHO (11).

The other staging system most widely used, at least in the United States, is that of the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) (13). In this system, the grading method employed depends on the histologic type of the tumor. For example, for endometrioid carcinomas, a system essentially equivalent to the FIGO system is used, which is also identical to the GOG method for grading of endometrioid carcinomas of the endometrium. On the other hand, transitional cell carcinomas of the ovary are graded in a manner similar to that for transitional cell carcinomas of the urinary bladder, while clear cell carcinomas are not graded at all. Thus, the grade assigned to a particular tumor is dependant on the observer's diagnosis of the histologic type of tumor, which has been shown in several studies to be poorly reproducible between pathologists (14–16). Furthermore, the GOG does not specify the grade to be used in the case of a carcinoma of mixed type (for example, endometrioid and clear cell or serous and transitional cell).

Because of the uncertainties and deficiencies associated with these three most popular grading systems, there have been several attempts to establish new grading systems using different features than those mentioned above. In 1986, Baak and colleagues (17) proposed a grading method based on mitotic activity index combined with the volume percentage of epithelium as estimated by a point counting method. The following year, Baak (with a different set of collaborators) (18) proposed a “decision rule” for ovarian epithelial tumor grading, which was based on three steps. In step 1, the decision is made as to whether the tumor has stromal invasion; if there is no stromal invasion, the tumor is called borderline and excluded from the following steps. In step 2, if the tumor is determined in step 1 to be an invasive carcinoma, it is further graded by the criteria of solid epithelial fields and hyperchromatic giant nuclei; the tumor is considered poorly differentiated if one ×40 microscopic field is filled with a solid epithelial sheet or if hyperchromatic giant nuclei are present. Step 3 is used for invasive carcinomas that are not considered poorly differentiated by step 2. In this step, the presence of one ×40 field with a cribriform growth pattern (defined as round [not oval or polygonal] lumina without intervening stroma) leads to the grading of the tumor as moderately differentiated. If the tumor is not considered either poorly or moderately differentiated by the application of steps 2 and 3, and is invasive by the application of step 1, then it is considered a well-differentiated carcinoma.

This grading system has not found wide application in the subsequent literature, but it was found to be both the most reproducible and the most prognostically significant system when compared with the “intuitive” method and the FIGO method by Brugghe and colleagues 9 years later (12). Parenthetically, in this study it was concluded that the assessment of histologic type was reproducible but prognostically not significant in the reported set of FIGO stage I patients, although the overall total agreement on histologic type was only 61%.

Another histopathologic grading system that was developed to overcome the shortcomings of existing systems was that of Bichel and Jakobsen (19). In this system, eight different parameters are evaluated, and each is given a score of from 1 to 3 points. The features evaluated are: 1.) tumor architectural structure (ratio of cystic or papillary structures to solid growth); 2.) nuclear polymorphism (size, shape, chromatin texture); 3.) nucleolar features (number, enlargement, and variability in shape and size); 4.) nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio; 5.) number of mitotic figures per 10 high-power-fields (MFs/10 HPFs); 6.) mode of invasion (well-defined versus infiltrative margins between tumor and surrounding stroma); 7.) capsular penetration (it is not defined whether this refers to the tumor capsule or the ovarian capsule); and 8.) vascular invasion. Each of these evaluated parameters is given a point score from 1 to 3, and a histologic grading index (HGI) is then defined as the mean of the values of the eight parameters and ranges from 1 to 3. In this study, the HGI correlated better (when cases were divided into tumors with an HGI ≤2.0 versus those >2.0) with both presence or absence of tumor at second-look surgery and 5-year survival than did the histologic grade alone (characterized by “the fraction of solid versus cystic or papillary structures”). As with the case of the system of Baak and colleagues described above (18), this system has not been applied widely in subsequent publications, and seems to be limited in use largely to the institution or institutions from which it arose.

An interesting comment on the variety of grading systems in existence appears in the recently published Third Series Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Fascicle on ovarian tumors by Scully and colleagues (20). The authors state:

“Almost all the reported studies of grading have shown a correlation with prognosis, at least at a univariate level, indicating that pathologists using a variety of grading methods can stratify ovarian cancers into several prognostic groups. The success in achieving this result is probably based on the existence of a subset of easily diagnosable grades 1, 2, and 3 (or 4) tumors. The poor reproducibility of grading, as shown by analysis of individual cases circulated among pathologists, however, indicates that disagreement exists on tumors with borderline grades. . . . The unfortunate conclusion is that unless a tumor is judged to belong indisputably within a grade, the grade assigned is an unreliable criterion on which to base therapy of an individual patient.”

Back to Top | Article Outline

PROPOSAL FOR A NEW GRADING SYSTEM

With the material presented above as a background, my colleagues and I began about 5 years ago to think about the development of a new grading system. We felt that the main criteria for a clinically useful grading system for ovarian carcinoma were that it should be: 1.) universal (that is, applicable to all histologic types of ovarian epithelial cancer); 2.) based on determinations that pathologists already know how to apply, so that it could be universal also in the sense of usable in many different institutions; and 3.) clinically valid, in the sense of being prognostically meaningful in both early and late stage ovarian cancer. To satisfy the first and second of these criteria, we turned for inspiration to the Nottingham system for grading of breast cancer, itself a modification of a system that has been in use for many years, and one whose clinical utility has been demonstrated across the spectrum of the numerous histologic types of mammary carcinoma (21,22). This apparent applicability to different histologic types of breast cancer was important to us, because it suggested that a modification of this system might satisfy our criterion of universality in ovarian cancer.

Since the Nottingham breast cancer system takes into account architectural pattern, nuclear pleomorphism, and mitotic activity, we felt that a similar three-tiered system might work for ovarian cancer, which is also an adenocarcinoma. In place of dependence on a tubular-ductal morphology alone for the architectural portion of the grading, together with dependence on a semiquantitative estimation of the proportion of a tumor showing this pattern as opposed to a solid one, we thought that it might be easier and more replicable for the pathologist simply to decide the architectural pattern displayed by the majority of the histologic fields in a given tumor. It also struck us that there were three rather than two major growth patterns in epithelial ovarian cancer: namely, glandular, papillary, and solid. Since glandular morphology was seen most prominently in ovarian carcinoma types with a generally favorable prognosis (endometrioid and mucinous), and the solid pattern was generally associated with loss of differentiation and aggressive behavior, we opted for a score of 1 for a predominantly glandular morphology, 2 for a papillary pattern, and 3 for solid growth.

The prognostic significance of this model was studied initially in a series of 461 epithelial ovarian cancers, divided fairly evenly among early (I/II) and advanced (III/IV) FIGO stage tumors, and with a good representation of the major histologic types (serous, clear cell, endometrioid, mucinous, transitional cell, and other) (23). In the initial determination, not only was this architectural grade related to survival in all ovarian cancers, early stage ovarian cancers, and advanced stage ovarian cancers, but it was also superior in these cases to the FIGO architectural grading system, and was also independent of the other parameters to be used in our system (that is, it had no significant correlation with either nuclear pleomorphism or mitotic activity). The architectural grade also proved to be prognostically useful for serous, endometrioid, and mucinous carcinomas, but there was no correlation of architectural grade with survival in either clear cell or transitional cell carcinoma.

Figs. 1 through 4 illustrate some of the patterns used in assigning the point score for architectural grade of an ovarian carcinoma in this system. Fig. 1 shows a glandular pattern, in this case seen in a well-differentiated endometrioid carcinoma. Figs. 2 and 3 both demonstrate a papillary growth pattern, seen in a serous carcinoma in Fig. 2 and a transitional cell carcinoma in Fig. 3. It should be noted that the glandular pattern is marked by round glands of either uniform or variable size, whereas the slit-like pattern sometimes encountered in serous carcinomas without a predominantly papillary pattern is interpreted as papillary (see Fig. 6). Fig. 4 depicts a solid growth pattern and is notable in that the solid sheets of cells contain numerous “holes” representing microcystic degeneration, which should not be misinterpreted as glands. In a true glandular pattern, the tumor cells will palisade around the central lumen with their long axes perpendicular to the lumen and to the basement membrane, whereas this orientation is lost in a microcystic degenerative focus, and cellular debris is usually noted within the pseudolumens.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Image Tools
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Image Tools
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Image Tools
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Image Tools
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Image Tools
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Image Tools
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Image Tools

The second factor to be analyzed and scored in our new grading system is the nuclear grade, which was also found to be independent of the other two parameters (23) and to work significantly as a prognostic indicator in both early and advanced stage ovarian carcinoma, as well as in early and advanced stage serous carcinoma, early stage clear cell carcinoma, early stage endometrioid carcinoma, and early and advanced stage mucinous carcinoma. Here again, the assignment of the score for nuclear pleomorphism must be described and illustrated. For this determination, the area of the tumor with the greatest degree of atypia in at least one-half of a low power (4× eyepiece, 10× objective lens) field should be chosen. For a score of 1 to be assigned (Fig. 5), there should be regular uniform vesicular nuclei (variation in diameter no greater than 2:1), a low nuclear:cytoplasmic ratio, and no chromatin clumping or prominent nucleoli. Score 2 is assigned for a variation in nuclear size between 2:1 and 4:1, as well as intermediate variation in shape. The nucleoli are recognizable but small, there is some chromatin clumping, and no bizarre cells are present (Fig. 6). Fields warranting a score of 3 (Fig. 7) contain cells with marked variation in nuclear size (greater than 4:1) and shape, a high nuclear:cytoplasmic ratio, prominent chromatin clumping, thick nuclear membranes, and large eosinophilic nucleoli. Bizarre cells are often present.

Mitotic activity was also shown in our initial study to be an independent variable, but there is some correlation between increasing mitotic count and increasing nuclear grade (23). It is probably the most difficult of the three histopathologic variables to reproduce from one observer to the next, as has been noted by numerous authors including myself (24). It has also been pointed out that if mitotic counting is to be used for any diagnostic purpose, it must be done compulsively and scrupulously (25). In our series, we evaluated the most mitotically active area in a tumor, which was usually at the periphery of the tumor where active growth was most likely. Strict criteria for the identification of mitotic figures were employed, and only nuclei with definite morphologic features of metaphase, anaphase, or telophase were counted. Hyperchromatic and apoptotic nuclei were excluded, as were inflammatory cells, degenerating cells, precipitated hematoxylin, and the like. A minimum of 30 fields was assessed, and the highest count of MFs/10 HPFs was recorded, using a Nikon Optiphot microscope (10× wide eye piece, 40× objective) with field diameter of 0.663 mm and field area 0.345 mm2. The number of MFs/10 HPFs that gave the best fit for prognostically significant information was 9 or fewer for score 1, 10 to 24 for score 2, and 25 or more for score 3. It was noted within the study for our initial publications on this grading system (23,26) that the mitotic activity of ovarian carcinomas was extremely variable, with some tumors displaying virtually no mitotic activity and others reaching mitotic counts of 150 to 200 per 10 HPFs. In general terms, the least mitotically active tumors were clear cell carcinomas, although they often had the most pleomorphic nuclei.

With the mitotic count score defined as above, it worked as a prognostic marker at a statistically significant level in stage I/II carcinomas, but was not significant (p = 0.0715) in stage III/IV disease. It also worked as a univariate prognostic marker in both early and advanced stage serous carcinoma and mucinous carcinoma, and in early stage endometrioid carcinoma. Because clear cell carcinomas had uniformly low mitotic counts (82% of 88 tumors with fewer than 10 MFs/10 HPFs), the cutoff numbers chosen did not predict prognosis in either early or advanced stage clear cell carcinoma, although by adjusting the numbers of MFs/10 HPFs downward for each point score, a prognostic significance could be developed.

Because each of the parameters summarized above (architectural pattern, nuclear pleomorphism, mitotic activity) proved to be independent variables (that is, independent of one another) in our series of cases, and because each of them correlated in univariate analysis with survival, it was deemed appropriate to combine them to create our final grading system (Table 2). As discussed above, each parameter is scored from 1 to 3, and the scores are then added, with a final score from 3 to 5 yielding a final grade of 1 (well-differentiated), 6 or 7 being equivalent to grade 2 (moderately differentiated), and 8 or 9 producing grade 3 (poorly differentiated), as in the Nottingham system (21,22). In our testing of this system in a series of 461 ovarian cancer patients with uniform treatment and follow-up (26), the final tumor grade correlated with survival in a statistically significant manner in both early and advanced stage disease and for all major histologic types of ovarian cancer except for clear cell carcinoma. The results for clear cell carcinoma approached but did not reach clinical significance. By multivariate analysis for a group of features including age, performance status, histologic tumor type, FIGO grade, and this new grade, only our new tumor grade and performance status were prognostically significant in stage I/II disease. In stage III/IV carcinomas, the new tumor grade was also significant by multivariate analysis, as were performance status, residual tumor size after initial operation, response to chemotherapy, and mucinous (unfavorable) or transitional cell (favorable) histologic type.

Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline

COMPARISON OF HISTOPATHOLOGIC GRADING AND TYPING

In my 1989 review of histopathologic prognostic factors in ovarian carcinoma, I reviewed 12 series, comprising more than 8,000 cases, published between 1982 and 1986, that had commented on the relationship of histopathologic type of epithelial ovarian carcinoma to survival. The general result was that mucinous and endometrioid carcinomas were considered favorable types, serous carcinoma less favorable, and undifferentiated carcinoma the most aggressive type of ovarian carcinoma. Interestingly, clear cell carcinoma (or “mesonephroid carcinoma,” as it was still frequently called) appeared somewhat indeterminate, in that about half of the publications placed it in the favorable category, and the other half considered it unfavorable. In virtually all of the published series, histopathologic type was less prognostically significant than clinical-pathologic stage, and usually less significant than grade as well, with multivariate analysis.

This analysis has changed little in recent years, but we were prompted to perform an analysis of the relation of grade to type in our own series of cases (27). We had already determined (26) that the only significant correlation of histopathologic type of carcinoma with survival by multivariate analysis was a favorable effect of transitional cell morphology and an unfavorable one of the mucinous phenotype in stage III/IV tumors. In stage I/II carcinomas, histopathologic type did not reach significance for any of the other patterns when compared with serous carcinoma, the most common type. In consideration of our results showing differences in advanced stage tumors, we wondered whether this might be due to chemotherapy responsiveness, and thus we analyzed response to chemotherapy in 251 ovarian carcinoma patients, 217 of whom were in stages III and IV. We found that high-stage serous, transitional cell, and endometrioid carcinomas responded well to a cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/cisplatin regimen. The response to cyclophosphamide cisplatin alone was similar for serous and transitional cell carcinomas, but complete plus partial response rate fell for endometrioid carcinomas from 92.3 to 30.0%. No case of either mucinous or clear cell carcinoma responded to either regimen. On the other hand, chemotherapy response was not strongly influenced by grade (response rate in all cases 46% for grade 1, 57% for grade 2, and 51% for grade 3 carcinomas), although, as summarized above, survival was strongly grade-related. Interestingly, there was a significantly poorer response rate among grade 3 serous and endometrioid carcinomas compared with lower grade tumors of those histopathologic types. We have also more recently shown (unpublished data) that among patients with serous, endometrioid, and transitional cell carcinomas who are complete responders to initial chemotherapy, the subsequent duration of progression-free interval is significantly related to grade, with the interval not yet reached among 11 patients with grade 1 tumors, 85 months for grade 2 tumors, and 40 months for grade 3 tumors. Among partial responders as well, the progression-free interval declines as grade advances.

Thus, although grade predicts survival better than does type of ovarian carcinoma, histopathologic type is a better predictor of chemoresponsiveness, and can suggest the optimal type of chemotherapy to be used. It is thus recommended that the surgical pathology report on cases of ovarian carcinoma include both the grade and type of tumor seen.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that although the initial published and presented studies of the efficacy of our grading system are our own, at least two other studies have now appeared in which the system has been used with satisfactory results. In a presentation on prognostic implications of the cell cycle inhibitor p27kip1 in ovarian cancer, Shaw and colleagues noted that the most significant predictors of survival in a series of 101 cases were stage, our grade, age, and DNA index (28). The same group also noted that this grading system was useful in distinguishing between ovarian carcinomas associated with BRCA mutations and those occurring sporadically, with the former having a statistically significantly higher grade, as well as being exclusively of serous type (29). We eagerly await more studies on the validity of this grading system, and are currently engaged in interobserver reproducibility studies ourselves.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Silverberg SG. Prognostic significance of pathologic features. Curr Top Pathol 1989; 78:85–109.

2. Eltabbakh GH, Belinson JL, Kennedy AW, et al. p53 overexpression is not an independent prognostic factor for patients with primary ovarian epithelial cancer. Cancer 1997; 80:892–8.

3. Gadducci A, Sartori E, Maggino T, et al. Analysis of failures in patients with stage I ovarian cancer: an Italian multicenter study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1997; 7:445–50.

4. Brugghe J, Baak JPA, Wiltshaw E, Brinkhuis M, Meijer GA, Fisher C. Quantitative prognostic features in FIGO I ovarian cancer patients without postoperative treatment. Gynecol Oncol 1998; 68:47–53.

5. Geisler JP, Geisler HE, Wiemann MC, Givens SS, Zhou Z, Miller GA. Nuclear shape: an independent predictor of survival in patients with ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1998; 8:164–7.

6. Reles AE, Gee C, Schellschmidt I, et al. Prognostic significance of DNA content and S-phase fraction in epithelial ovarian carcinomas analyzed by image cytometry. Gynecol Oncol 1998; 71:3–13.

7. Anttila MA, Ji H, Juhola MT, Saarikoski SV, Syrjänen KJ. The prognostic significance of p53 expression quantitated by computerized image analysis in epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1999; 18:42–51.

8. Ross JS, Yang F, Kallakury BVS, Sheehan CE, Ambros RA, Muraca PJ. HER-2/neu oncogene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization in epithelial tumors of the ovary. Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 111:311–6.

9. Wen WH, Reles A, Runnebaum IB, Sullivan-Halley J, et al. p53 mutations and expression in ovarian cancers: correlation with overall survival. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1999; 18:29–41.

10. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Classification and staging of malignant tumours in the female pelvis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1971;50:1–7.

11. Serov SF, Scully RE, Sobin LH, eds. Histological typing of ovarian tumours. In:International Histological Classification of Tumours, No. 9. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1973:17–54.

12. Brugghe J, Baak JPA, Wiltshaw E, Fisher C. Further evaluation of reproducibility and prognostic value of histologic typing and grading in FIGO stage I ovarian cancer patients without systemic locoregional adjuvant treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1995; 5:262–8.

13. Benda JA, Zaino R. GOG Pathology Manual. Buffalo, NY: Gynecologic Oncology Group, 1994.

14. Hernandez E, Bhagavan BS, Parmley TH, Rosenshein NB. Interobserver variability in the interpretation of epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1984; 17:117–23.

15. Baak JPA, Langley FA, Talerman A, Delemarre JFM. Interpathologist and intrapathologist disagreement in ovarian tumor grading and typing. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1986; 8:354–7.

16. Stalsberg H, Abeler V, Blom GP, Bostad L, Skarland E, Westgaard G. Observer variation in histologic classification of malignant and borderline ovarian tumors. Hum Pathol 1988; 19:1030–5.

17. Baak JPA, Wisse-Brekelmans ECM, Langley FA, Talerman A, Delemarre JFM. Morphometric data to FIGO stage and histological type and grade for prognosis of ovarian tumours. J Clin Pathol 1986; 39:1340–6.

18. Baak JPA, Chan KK, Stolk JG, Kenemans P. Prognostic factors in borderline and invasive ovarian tumours of the common epithelial type. Pathol Res Pract 1987; 182:755–74.

19. Bichel P, Jakobsen A. A new histologic grading index in ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1989: 8:147–55.

20. Scully RE, Young RH, Clement PB. Tumors of the ovary, maldeveloped gonads, fallopian tube, and broad ligament. In: Atlas of Tumor Pathology, Third Series, Fascicle 23. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 1998:40–1.

21. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991; 19:403–10.

22. Pereira H, Pinder SE, Sibbering DM, et al. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. IV. Should you be a typer or a grader? A comparative study of two histological prognostic features in operable breast carcinoma. Histopathology 1995; 27:219–26.

23. Shimizu Y, Kamoi S, Amada S, Hasumi K, Akiyama F, Silverberg SG. Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma. I. Prognostic significance of histopathologic features—Problems involved in the architectural grading system. Gynecol Oncol 1998; 70:2–12.

24. Silverberg SG. Reproducibility of the mitosis count in the histologic diagnosis of smooth muscle tumors of the uterus. Hum Pathol 1976; 7:451–4.

25. Kempson RL, Hendrickson MR. Mesenchymal neoplasms of the uterus. In: Fox H, ed. Obstetric and Gynaecologic Pathology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987:411–56.

26. 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; 82:893–901.

27. Shimizu Y, Kamoi S, Amada S, Akiyama F, Hasumi K, Silverberg SG. The grader and the typer should be friends: a study of comparative value of histopathologic grading and typing of ovarian epithelial carcinoma [Abstract]. Mod Pathol 1998; 11:115A.

28. Shaw PA, Slingerland JM, Sugimoto A, Covens AL. Prognostic implications of the cell cycle inhibitor p27kip1 in ovarian cancer [Abstract]. Mod Pathol 1999; 12:124A.

29. Shaw PA, Zweemer RP, McLaughlin J, Narod SA, Risch H, Jacobs IJ. Characteristics of genetically determined ovarian cancer [Abstract]. Mod Pathol 1999; 12:124A.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 136 time(s).

Journal of Ovarian Research
Investigation of human cationic antimicrobial protein-18 (hCAP-18), lactoferrin and CD163 as potential biomarkers for ovarian cancer
Lim, R; Lappas, M; Riley, C; Borregaard, N; Moller, HJ; Ahmed, N; Rice, GE
Journal of Ovarian Research, 6(): -.
ARTN 5
CrossRef
Korean Journal of Pathology
Prognostic Relevance of the Expression of CA IX, GLUT-1, and VEGF in Ovarian Epithelial Cancers
Kim, K; Park, WY; Kim, JY; Sol, MY; Shin, DH; Park, DY; Lee, CH; Lee, JH; Choi, KU
Korean Journal of Pathology, 46(6): 532-540.
10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2012.46.6.532
CrossRef
Cancer Causes & Control
Agreement for tumor grade of ovarian carcinoma: analysis of archival tissues from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results residual tissue repository
Matsuno, RK; Sherman, ME; Visvanathan, K; Goodman, MT; Hernandez, BY; Lynch, CF; Ioffe, OB; Horio, D; Platz, C; Altekruse, SF; Pfeiffer, RM; Anderson, WF
Cancer Causes & Control, 24(4): 749-757.
10.1007/s10552-013-0157-5
CrossRef
British Journal of Cancer
DNA copy number profiling reveals extensive genomic loss in hereditary BRCA1 and BRCA2 ovarian carcinomas
Kamieniak, MM; Munoz-Repeto, I; Rico, D; Osorio, A; Urioste, M; Garcia-Donas, J; Hernando, S; Robles-Diaz, L; Cajal, TRY; Cazorla, A; Saez, R; Garcia-Bueno, JM; Domingo, S; Borrego, S; Palacios, J; van de Wiel, MA; Ylstra, B; Benitez, J; Garcia, MJ
British Journal of Cancer, 108(8): 1732-1742.
10.1038/bjc.2013.141
CrossRef
Biomarkers
Overexpression of multiple myeloma SET domain (MMSET) is associated with advanced tumor aggressiveness and poor prognosis in serous ovarian carcinoma
Yang, SS; Zhang, YY; Meng, FL; Liu, YD; Xia, BR; Xiao, M; Xu, Y; Ning, XM; Li, HM; Lou, G
Biomarkers, 18(3): 257-263.
10.3109/1354750X.2013.773082
CrossRef
Pathology Research and Practice
Early stage epithelial ovarian cancers: A study of morphologic prognostic factors
Terzi, A; Aktas, IY; Dolgun, A; Ayhan, A; Kucukali, T; Usubutun, A
Pathology Research and Practice, 209(6): 359-364.
10.1016/j.prp.2013.03.009
CrossRef
Gynecologic Oncology
Low-grade serous carcinoma: New concepts and emerging therapies
Romero, I; Sun, CC; Wong, KK; Bast, RC; Gershenson, DM
Gynecologic Oncology, 130(3): 660-666.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.021
CrossRef
Virchows Archiv
Expression of MAGE-C1/CT7 and selected cancer/testis antigens in ovarian borderline tumours and primary and recurrent ovarian carcinomas
Zimmermann, AK; Imig, J; Klar, A; Renner, C; Korol, D; Fink, D; Stadlmann, S; Singer, G; Knuth, A; Moch, H; Caduff, R
Virchows Archiv, 462(5): 565-574.
10.1007/s00428-013-1395-3
CrossRef
Gynecologic Oncology
Low-grade and high-grade serous Mullerian carcinoma: Review and analysis of publicly available gene expression profiles
May, T; Shoni, M; Crum, CP; Xian, W; Vathipadiekal, V; Birrer, M; Rosen, B; Tone, A; Murphy, KJ
Gynecologic Oncology, 128(3): 488-492.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.12.009
CrossRef
Cancer Science
Nuclear receptor DAX-1 in human common epithelial ovarian carcinoma: An independent prognostic factor of clinical outcome
Abd-Elaziz, M; Akahira, J; Moriya, T; Suzuki, T; Yaegashi, N; Sasano, H
Cancer Science, 94(): 980-985.

Gynecologic Oncology
Papillary serous carcinoma in ovaries of normal size: A clinicopathologic study of 20 cases and comparison with extraovarian peritoneal papillary serous carcinoma
Choi, CH; Kim, TJ; Kim, WY; Ahn, GH; Lee, JW; Kim, BG; Lee, JH; Bae, DS
Gynecologic Oncology, 105(3): 762-768.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.02.020
CrossRef
Journal of Clinical Pathology
My approach to and thoughts on the typing of ovarian carcinomas
McCluggage, WG
Journal of Clinical Pathology, 61(2): 152-163.
10.1136/jcp.2007.049478
CrossRef
Korean Journal of Pathology
The expression of c-erbB-2, EGFP, p53 and Ki-67 in ovarian borderline tumors and carcinomas of the ovary
Min, KW; Park, MH
Korean Journal of Pathology, 41(5): 296-306.

Gynecologic Oncology
Tumor type and substage predict survival in stage I and II ovarian carcinoma: Insights and implications
Kobel, M; Kalloger, SE; Santos, JL; Huntsman, DG; Gilks, CB; Swenerton, KD
Gynecologic Oncology, 116(1): 50-56.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.09.029
CrossRef
Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde
Prognostic significance of ploidy and DNA index in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma
Projic, P; Smaija, I; Bezic, J; Tomic, S; Andelinovic, S
Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde, 67(5): 475-479.
10.1055/s-2007-965245
CrossRef
American Journal of Clinical Pathology
Role of lmmunohistochemical overexpression of matrix metalloproteinases MMP-2 and MMP-11 in the prognosis of death by ovarian cancer
Perigny, M; Bairati, I; Harvey, I; Beauchemin, M; Harel, F; Plante, M; Tetu, B
American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 129(2): 226-231.
10.1309/49LA9XCBGWJ8F2KM
CrossRef
Korean Journal of Pathology
Analysis of microsatellite instability in ovarian epithelial cancer
Sol, MY; Choi, KU; Kim, JY; Kang, HJ; Shin, DH; Kim, ID; Choi, HS; Seo, SJ
Korean Journal of Pathology, 41(6): 380-386.

Cellular Oncology
Co-expression of plexin-B1 and Met in human breast and ovary tumours enhances the risk of progression
Valente, G; Nicotra, G; Arrondini, M; Castino, R; Capparuccia, L; Prat, M; Kerim, S; Tamagnone, L; Isidoro, C
Cellular Oncology, 31(6): 423-436.
10.3233/CLO-2009-0504
CrossRef
Modern Pathology
Low membranous expression of beta-catenin and high mitotic count predict poor prognosis in endometrioid carcinoma of the ovary
Rosen, DG; Zhang, ZH; Chang, B; Wang, XM; Lin, E; Liu, JS
Modern Pathology, 23(1): 113-122.
10.1038/modpathol.2009.141
CrossRef
Plos One
Gene Expression Profile for Predicting Survival in Advanced-Stage Serous Ovarian Cancer Across Two Independent Datasets
Yoshihara, K; Tajima, A; Yahata, T; Kodama, S; Fujiwara, H; Suzuki, M; Onishi, Y; Hatae, M; Sueyoshi, K; Fujiwara, H; Kudo, Y; Kotera, K; Masuzaki, H; Tashiro, H; Katabuchi, H; Inoue, I; Tanaka, K
Plos One, 5(3): -.
ARTN e9615
CrossRef
Cancer Investigation
Applications of SKY in cancer cytogenetics
Bayani, JM; Squire, JA
Cancer Investigation, 20(3): 373-386.

Croatian Medical Journal
c-erbB-2, p53, and nm23 proteins as prognostic factors in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma
Tomic, S; Forko, JI; Babic, D; Sundov, D; Kuret, S; Andelinovic, S
Croatian Medical Journal, 44(4): 429-434.

Gynecologic Oncology
Expression of beta-tubulin isotypes in human primary ovarian carcinoma
Ohishi, Y; Oda, Y; Basaki, Y; Kobayashi, H; Wake, N; Kuwano, M; Tsuneyoshi, M
Gynecologic Oncology, 105(3): 586-592.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.044
CrossRef
Virchows Archiv
Clinicopathological significance of WT1 expression in ovarian cancer: a possible accelerator of tumor progression in serous adenocarcinoma
Yamamoto, S; Tsuda, H; Kita, T; Maekawa, K; Fujii, K; Kudoh, K; Furuya, K; Tamai, S; Inazawa, J; Matsubara, O
Virchows Archiv, 451(1): 27-35.
10.1007/s00428-007-0433-4
CrossRef
American Journal of Clinical Pathology
CAS (cellular apoptosis susceptibility) gene expression in ovarian carcinoma - Correlation with 20q13.2 copy number and cyclin D1, p53, and Rb protein expression
Peiro, G; Diebold, J; Lohrs, U
American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 118(6): 922-929.
10.1092/JU8YP7MJK2WDT1FY
CrossRef
Human Pathology
Expression of semaphorins, vascular endothelial growth factor, and their common receptor neuropilins and alleic loss of semaphorin locus in epithelia ovarian neoplasms: increased ratio of vascular endothelial growth factor to semaphorin is a poor prognostic factor in ovarian carcinomas
Osada, R; Horiuchi, A; Kikuchi, N; Ohira, S; Ota, M; Katsuyama, Y; Konishi, I
Human Pathology, 37(): 1414-1425.
10.1016/j.humpath.2006.04.031
CrossRef
Modern Pathology
Actinin-4 expression in ovarian cancer: a novel prognostic indicator independent of clinical stage and histological type
Yamamoto, S; Tsuda, H; Honda, K; Kita, T; Takano, M; Tamai, S; Inazawa, J; Yamada, T; Matsubara, O
Modern Pathology, 20(): 1278-1285.
10.1038/modpathol.3800966
CrossRef
Pathology International
Clinicopathological significance of DEK overexpression in serous ovarian tumors
Han, SY; Xuan, YH; Liu, SP; Zhang, MH; Jin, DZ; Jin, RS; Lin, ZH
Pathology International, 59(7): 443-447.
10.1111/j.1440-1827.2009.02392.x
CrossRef
Bulletin Du Cancer
Prognostic and predictive factors in epithelial ovarian cancer
Boudou-Rouquette, P; Pautier, P; Morice, P; Lhomme, C
Bulletin Du Cancer, 96(4): 425-437.
10.1684/bdc.2008.0782
CrossRef
Oncology Research
The CYP1A1 Ile462Val Polymorphism and Platinum Resistance of Epithelial Ovarian Neoplasms
Heubner, M; Wimberger, P; Riemann, K; Kasimir-Bauer, S; Otterbach, F; Kimmig, R; Siffert, W
Oncology Research, 18(7): 343-347.
10.3727/096504010X12626118079903
CrossRef
Pathology Research and Practice
Apoptotic bodies as a morphological feature in serous ovarian carcinoma: Correlation with nuclear grade, Ki-67 and mitotic indices
Brustmann, H
Pathology Research and Practice, 198(2): 85-90.

Journal of Surgical Oncology
Lymphatic spread among women with primary peritoneal carcinoma
Eltabbakh, GH; Mount, SL
Journal of Surgical Oncology, 81(3): 126-131.
10.1002/jso.10166
CrossRef
Human Pathology
Hobnail-like cells in serous borderline tumor do not represent concomitant incipient clear cell neoplasms
Ohishi, Y; Oda, Y; Kurihara, S; Kaku, T; Yasunaga, M; Nishimura, I; Okuma, E; Kobayashi, H; Wake, N; Tsuneyoshi, M
Human Pathology, 40(8): 1168-1175.
10.1016/j.humpath.2009.01.002
CrossRef
Clinical & Experimental Metastasis
Role of integrin receptors for fibronectin, collagen and laminin in the regulation of ovarian carcinoma functions in response to a matrix microenvironment
Ahmed, N; Riley, C; Rice, G; Quinn, M
Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, 22(5): 391-402.
10.1007/s10585-005-1262-y
CrossRef
Cancer Science
Prognostic implications of the nuclear localization of Y-box-binding protein-1 and CXCR4 expression in ovarian cancer: Their correlation with activated Akt, LRP/MVP and P-glycoprotein expression
Oda, Y; Ohishi, Y; Basaki, Y; Kobayashi, H; Hirakawa, T; Wake, N; Ono, M; Nishio, K; Kuwano, M; Tsuneyoshi, M
Cancer Science, 98(7): 1020-1026.
10.1111/j.1349-7006.2007.00492.x
CrossRef
Pathology Research and Practice
Human papilloma virus (HPV) status, p16(INK4a), and p53 overexpression in epithelial malignant and borderline ovarian neoplasms
Giordano, G; Azzoni, C; D'Adda, T; Rocca, A; Gnetti, L; Frolo, E; Merislo, C; Melpignano, M
Pathology Research and Practice, 204(3): 163-174.
10.1016/j.prp.2007.11.001
CrossRef
Modern Pathology
Potentially important microRNA cluster on chromosome 17p13.1 in primary peritoneal carcinoma
Flavin, RJ; Smyth, PC; Laios, A; O'Toole, SA; Barrett, C; Finn, SP; Russell, S; Ring, M; Denning, KM; Li, J; Aherne, ST; Sammarae, DA; Aziz, NA; Alhadi, A; Sheppard, BL; Lao, K; Sheils, OM; O'Leary, JJ
Modern Pathology, 22(2): 197-205.
10.1038/modpathol.2008.135
CrossRef
Journal of Clinical Pathology
Morphological effects of chemotherapy on ovarian carcinoma
McCluggage, WG; Lyness, RW; Atkinson, RJ; Dobbs, SP; Harley, I; McClelland, HR; Price, JH
Journal of Clinical Pathology, 55(1): 27-31.

Clinical Cancer Research
DNA replication licensing factors and aurora kinases are linked to aneuploidy and clinical outcome in epithelial ovarian carcinoma
Kulkarni, AA; Loddo, M; Leo, E; Rashid, M; Eward, KL; Fanshawe, TR; Butcher, J; Frost, A; Ledermann, JA; Williams, GH; Stoeber, K
Clinical Cancer Research, 13(): 6153-6161.
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-0671
CrossRef
Onkologie
Ovarian cancer treatment reality in northern Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany). Suboptimal surgical treatment as a possible cause for inferior survival
Weide, R; Arndt, M; Pandorf, A; Heymanns, J; Thomalla, J; Koppler, H
Onkologie, 30(): 611-617.
10.1159/000110093
CrossRef
Clinical Cancer Research
Both germ line and somatic genetics of the p53 pathway affect ovarian cancer incidence and survival
Bartel, F; Jung, J; Boehnke, A; Gradhand, E; Zeng, K; Thomssen, C; Hauptmann, S
Clinical Cancer Research, 14(1): 89-96.
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1192
CrossRef
Annals of Oncology
Prognostic significance of histological grade in clear-cell carcinoma of the ovary: a retrospective study of Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group
Ryu, SY; Park, SI; Nam, BH; Kim, I; Yoo, CW; Nam, JH; Lee, KH; Cho, CH; Kim, JH; Park, SY; Kim, BG; Kang, SB
Annals of Oncology, 20(6): 1032-1036.
10.1093/annonc/mdn764
CrossRef
Annual Review of Pathology-Mechanisms of Disease
Ovarian Cancer
Cho, KR; Shih, IM
Annual Review of Pathology-Mechanisms of Disease, 4(): 287-313.
10.1146/annurev.pathol.4.110807.092246
CrossRef
Cancer
Untitled
Cibull, ML; Karabakhtsian, RG
Cancer, 112(): 2108-2111.
10.1002/cncr.23439
CrossRef
Bmc Cancer
Immunohistochemical profiling of benign, low malignant potential and low grade serous epithelial ovarian tumors
Ouellet, V; Ling, TH; Normandin, K; Madore, J; Lussier, C; Barres, V; Bachvarov, D; Rancourt, C; Tonin, PN; Provencher, DM; Mes-Masson, AM
Bmc Cancer, 8(): -.
ARTN 346
CrossRef
Modern Pathology
Actinin-4 gene amplification in ovarian cancer: a candidate oncogene associated with poor patient prognosis and tumor chemoresistance
Yamamoto, S; Tsuda, H; Honda, K; Onozato, K; Takano, M; Tamai, S; Imoto, I; Inazawa, J; Yamada, T; Matsubara, O
Modern Pathology, 22(4): 499-507.
10.1038/modpathol.2008.234
CrossRef
Anticancer Research
The AA Genotype of a L1C G842A Polymorphism Is Associated with an Increased Risk for Ovarian Cancer
Heubner, M; Wimberger, P; Kasimir-Bauer, S; Otterbach, F; Kimmig, R; Siffert, W
Anticancer Research, 29(8): 3449-3452.

Gynecologic Oncology
Vascular endothelial growth factor expression in serous ovarian carcinoma: Relationship with high mitotic activity and high FIGO stage
Brustmann, H; Naude, S
Gynecologic Oncology, 84(1): 47-52.
10.1006/gyno.2001.6467
CrossRef
Cancer Biology & Therapy
The metastasis-associated gene MTA1 is upregulated in advanced ovarian cancer, represses ER beta, and enhances expression of oncogenic cytokine GRO
Dannenmann, C; Shabani, N; Friese, K; Jeschke, U; Mylonas, I; Bruning, A
Cancer Biology & Therapy, 7(9): 1462-1469.

British Journal of Cancer
Cross talk of signals between EGFR and IL-6R through JAK2/STAT3 mediate epithelial-mesenchymal transition in ovarian carcinomas
Colomiere, M; Ward, AC; Riley, C; Trenerry, MK; Cameron-Smith, D; Findlay, J; Ackland, L; Ahmed, N
British Journal of Cancer, 100(1): 134-144.
10.1038/sj.bjc.6604794
CrossRef
Gynecologic Oncology
Recurrent low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma is relatively chemoresistant
Gershenson, DM; Sun, CC; Bodurka, D; Coleman, RL; Lu, KH; Sood, AK; Deavers, M; Malpica, AL; Kavanagh, JJ
Gynecologic Oncology, 114(1): 48-52.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.001
CrossRef
Clinical Cancer Research
Cell-free 59 kDa immunoreactive integrin-linked kinase: A novel marker for ovarian carcinoma
Ahmed, N; Oliva, K; Rice, GE; Quinn, MA
Clinical Cancer Research, 10(7): 2415-2420.

Human Reproduction
Conservative treatment in epithelial ovarian cancer: results of a multicentre study of the GCCLCC (Groupe des Chirurgiens de Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer) and SFOG (Societe Francaise d'Oncologie Gynecologique)
Morice, P; Leblanc, E; Rey, A; Baron, M; Querleu, D; Blanchot, J; Duvillard, P; Lhomme, C; Castaigne, D; Classe, JM; Bonnier, P
Human Reproduction, 20(5): 1379-1385.
10.1093/humrep/deh777
CrossRef
Histopathology
Lesson of the Month - Grading of serous ovarian carcinoma: further evidence of a lack of agreement between conventional grading systems
Singh, N; Ayhan, A; Menon, U; Aleong, JAC; Faruqi, AZ; Gayther, SA; Jacobs, IJ
Histopathology, 52(3): 393-395.
10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02912.x
CrossRef
British Journal of Cancer
Ascites induces modulation of alpha 6 beta 1 integrin and urokinase plasminogen activator receptor expression and associated functions in ovarian carcinoma
Ahmed, N; Riley, C; Oliva, K; Rice, G; Quinn, M
British Journal of Cancer, 92(8): 1475-1485.
10.1038/sj.bjc.6602495
CrossRef
Histology and Histopathology
Fascin in ovarian epithelial tumors
Kostopoulou, E; Daponte, A; Terzis, A; Nakou, M; Chiotoglou, I; Theodosiou, D; Chatzichristodoulou, C; Messinis, IE; Koukoulis, G
Histology and Histopathology, 23(8): 935-944.

Cancer
Survival among women with borderline ovarian tumors and ovarian carcinoma - A population-based analysis
Sherman, ME; Mink, PJ; Curtis, R; Cote, TR; Brooks, S; Hartge, P; Devesa, S
Cancer, 100(5): 1045-1052.

Gynecologic Oncology
Factors associated with cytoreducibility among women with ovarian carcinoma
Eltabbakh, GH; Mount, SL; Beatty, B; Simmons-Arnold, L; Cooper, K; Morgan, A
Gynecologic Oncology, 95(2): 377-383.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.07.045
CrossRef
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
Role of human papillomavirus in the development of epithelial ovarian neoplasms in Italian women
Giordano, G; D'Adda, T; Gnetti, L; Froio, E; Merisio, C; Melpignano, M
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 34(2): 210-217.
10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00759.x
CrossRef
American Journal of Surgical Pathology
Subdividing Ovarian and Peritoneal Serous Carcinoma Into Moderately Differentiated and Poorly Differentiated Does not Have Biologic Validity Based on Molecular Genetic and In Vitro Drug Resistance Data
Vang, R; Shih, IM; Salani, R; Sugar, E; Ayhan, A; Kurman, RJ
American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 32(): 1667-1674.

Human Cell
POU6F1 is the transcription factor that might be involved in cell proliferation of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the ovary
Yoshioka, N; Suzuki, N; Uekawa, A; Kiguchi, K; Ishizuka, B
Human Cell, 22(4): 94-100.
10.1111/j.1749-0774.2009.00074.x
CrossRef
International Journal of Biological Markers
Association of the AA genotype of the BCL2 (-938C > A) promoter polymorphism with better survival in ovarian cancer
Heubner, M; Wimberger, P; Otterbach, F; Kasimir-Bauer, S; Siffert, W; Kimmig, R; Nuckel, H
International Journal of Biological Markers, 24(4): 223-229.

Human Pathology
Expression of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha, hypoxia-inducible factor 2 alpha, and von Hippel-Lindau protein in epitheLiaL ovarian neoplasms and allelic loss of von Hippel-Lindau gene: nuclear expression of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha is an independent prognostic factor in ovarian carcinoma
Osada, R; Horiuchi, A; Kikuchi, N; Yoshida, J; Hayashi, A; Ota, M; Katsuyama, Y; Melilo, G; Konishi, I
Human Pathology, 38(9): 1310-1320.
10.1006/j.humpath.2007.02.010
CrossRef
British Journal of Cancer
Enhanced expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma in epithelial ovarian carcinoma
Zhang, GY; Ahmed, N; Riley, C; Oliva, K; Barker, G; Quinn, MA; Rice, GE
British Journal of Cancer, 92(1): 113-119.
10.1038/sj.bjc.6602244
CrossRef
Analytical and Quantitative Cytology and Histology
Expression of PTEN in ovarian epithelial tumors and its relation to tumor behavior and growth
Lee, JS; Choi, YD; Choi, C; Lee, MC; Park, CS; Min, KW
Analytical and Quantitative Cytology and Histology, 27(4): 202-210.

Gynecologic Oncology
VEGF and HIF-1 alpha expression are increased in advanced stages of epithelial ovarian cancer
Wong, C; Wellman, TL; Lounsbury, KM
Gynecologic Oncology, 91(3): 513-517.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.08.022
CrossRef
Modern Pathology
Markers of proliferative activity are predictors of patient outcome for low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma but not papillary serous carcinoma of endometrium
Al Kushi, A; Lim, P; Aquino-Parsons, C; Gilks, CB
Modern Pathology, 15(4): 365-371.

Cancer Letters
Expression of lysophosphatidic acid receptors and vascular endothelial growth factor mediating lysophosphatidic acid in the development of human ovarian cancer
Fujita, T; Miyamoto, S; Onoyama, I; Sonoda, K; Mekada, E; Nakano, H
Cancer Letters, 192(2): 161-169.
10.1016/S0304-3835(02)00713-9
CrossRef
Gynecologic Oncology
Correlation of tumor- and stromal-derived MT1-MMP expression with progression of human ovarian tumors in SCID mice
Drew, AF; Blick, TJ; Lafleur, MA; Tim, ELM; Robbie, MJ; Rice, GE; Quinn, MA; Thompson, EW
Gynecologic Oncology, 95(3): 437-448.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.08.032
CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 in epithelial ovarian tumors and its relation to vascular endothelial growth factor and p53 expression
Lee, JS; Choi, YD; Lee, JH; Nam, JH; Choi, C; Lee, MC; Park, CS; Juhng, SW; Min, KW
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 16(): 247-253.

Journal of Surgical Oncology
Clinical and molecular differences between clear cell and papillary serous ovarian carcinoma
Eltabbakh, GH; Mount, SL; Beatty, B; Simmons-Arnold, L; Cooper, K
Journal of Surgical Oncology, 93(5): 379-386.
10.1002/jso.20494
CrossRef
Critical Reviews in Oncology Hematology
Ovarian cancer
Colombo, N; Van Gorp, T; Parma, G; Amant, F; Gatta, G; Sessa, C; Vergote, I
Critical Reviews in Oncology Hematology, 60(2): 159-179.
10.1016/j.critrevonc.2006.03.004
CrossRef
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Histological grading of epithelial ovarian carcinomas
Doyle, EM; Foley, M; Kelehan, P; Mooney, EE
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 27(1): 71-74.
10.1080/01443610601056434
CrossRef
British Journal of Cancer
An immunohistochemical perspective of PPAR beta and one of its putative targets PDK1 in normal ovaries, benign and malignant ovarian tumours
Ahmed, N; Riley, C; Quinn, MA
British Journal of Cancer, 98(8): 1415-1424.
10.1038/sj.bjc.6604306
CrossRef
Human Pathology
Tumor cell type can be reproducibly diagnosed and is of independent prognostic significance in patients with maximally debulked ovarian carcinoma
Gilks, CB; Ionescu, DN; Kalloger, SE; Kobel, M; Irving, J; Clarke, B; Santos, J; Le, N; Moravan, V; Swenerton, K
Human Pathology, 39(8): 1239-1251.
10.1016/j.humpath.2008.01.003
CrossRef
American Journal of Clinical Pathology
S100A1 Expression in Ovarian and Endometrial Endometrioid Carcinomas Is a Prognostic Indicator of Relapse-Free Survival
DeRycke, MS; Andersen, JD; Harrington, KM; Pambuccian, SE; Kalloger, SE; Boylan, KLM; Argenta, PA; Skubitz, APN
American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 132(6): 846-856.
10.1309/AJCPTK87EMMIKPFS
CrossRef
Virchows Archiv
Vascular endothelial growth factor C mRNA expression is a prognostic factor in epithelial ovarian cancer as detected by kinetic RT-PCR in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue
Sinn, BV; Darb-Esfahani, S; Wirtz, RM; Faggad, A; Weichert, W; Buckendahl, AC; Noske, A; Muller, BM; Budczies, J; Sehouli, J; Braicu, EI; Dietel, M; Denkert, C
Virchows Archiv, 455(6): 461-467.
10.1007/s00428-009-0851-6
CrossRef
Clinical Cancer Research
ATP-binding cassette superfamily transporter gene expression in human primary ovarian carcinoma
Ohishi, Y; Oda, Y; Uchiumi, T; Kobayashi, H; Hirakawa, T; Miyamoto, S; Kinukawa, N; Nakano, H; Kuwano, M; Tsuneyoshi, M
Clinical Cancer Research, 8(): 3767-3775.

Journal of Pathology
Integrin-linked kinase expression increases with ovarian turnour grade and is sustained by peritoneal tumour fluid
Ahmed, N; Riley, C; Oliva, K; Stutt, E; Rice, GE; Quinn, MA
Journal of Pathology, 201(2): 229-237.
10.1002/path.1441
CrossRef
Cancer
Five genes from chromosomal band 8p22 are significantly down-regulated in ovarian carcinoma - N33 and EFA6R have a potential impact on overall survival
Pils, D; Horak, P; Gleiss, A; Sax, C; Fabjani, G; Moebus, VJ; Zielinski, C; Reinthaller, A; Zeillinger, R; Krainer, M
Cancer, 104(): 2417-2429.
10.1002/cncr.21538
CrossRef
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: Validation and improvement of an established prognostic index
Gronlund, B; Christensen, IJ; Bulow-Lehnsby, AL; Engelholm, SA; Hansen, HH; Hogdall, C
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 123(1): 98-106.
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.011
CrossRef
International Journal of Cancer
Aberrant expression of BARD1 in breast and ovarian cancers with poor prognosis
Wu, JY; Vlastos, AT; Pelte, MF; Caligo, MA; Bianco, A; Krause, KH; Laurent, GJ; Irminger-Finger, I
International Journal of Cancer, 118(5): 1215-1226.
10.1002/ijc.21428
CrossRef
Translational Research
Differential gene expression identifies subgroups of ovarian carcinoma
Skubitz, APN; Pambuccian, SE; Argenta, PA; Skubitz, KM
Translational Research, 148(5): 223-248.
10.1016/j.trsl.2006.06.001
CrossRef
British Journal of Cancer
Proteomic-based identification of haptoglobin-1 precursor as a novel circulating biomarker of ovarian cancer
Ahmed, N; Barker, G; Oliva, KT; Hoffmann, P; Riley, C; Reeve, S; Smith, AL; Kemp, BE; Quinn, MA; Rice, GE
British Journal of Cancer, 91(1): 129-140.
10.1038/sj.bjc.6601882
CrossRef
International Journal of Cancer
Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) an early-screening biomarker for ovarian cancer: NGAL is associated with epidermal growth factor-induced epithelio-mesenchymal transition
Lim, R; Ahmed, N; Borregaard, N; Riley, C; Wafai, R; Thompson, EW; Quinn, MA; Rice, GE
International Journal of Cancer, 120(): 2426-2434.
10.1002/ijc.22352
CrossRef
Turkiye Klinikleri Tip Bilimleri Dergisi
Grading of the ovarian serous cystadencarcinomas, and its correlation with BRCA1 and p53 immunoreactivity
Gunes, N; Yilmaz, F; Uzunlar, AK
Turkiye Klinikleri Tip Bilimleri Dergisi, 27(3): 335-343.

Virchows Archiv
Histological grading in a large series of advanced stage ovarian carcinomas by three widely used grading systems: consistent lack of prognostic significance. A translational research subprotocol of a prospective randomized phase III study (AGO-OVAR 3 protocol)
Kommoss, S; Schmidt, D; Kommoss, F; Hedderich, J; Harter, P; Pfisterer, J; du Bois, A
Virchows Archiv, 454(3): 249-256.
10.1007/s00428-009-0725-y
CrossRef
Cancer Science
Hedgehog signal pathway is activated in ovarian carcinomas, correlating with cell proliferation: It's inhibition leads to growth suppression and apoptosis
Chen, XJ; Horiuchi, A; Kikuchi, N; Osada, R; Yoshida, J; Shiozawa, T; Konishi, I
Cancer Science, 98(1): 68-76.
10.1111/j.1349-7006.2006.00353.x
CrossRef
Modern Pathology
Immunophenotyping of serous carcinoma of the female genital tract
Nofech-Mozes, S; Khalifa, MA; Ismiil, N; Saad, RS; Hanna, WM; Covens, A; Ghorab, Z
Modern Pathology, 21(9): 1147-1155.
10.1038/modpathol.2008.108
CrossRef
Journal of Pathology
E2Fs mediate a fundamental cell-cycle deregulation in high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas
De Meyer, T; Bijmans, ITGW; de Vijver, KKV; Bekaert, S; Oosting, J; Van Criekinge, W; van Engeland, M; Sieben, NLG
Journal of Pathology, 217(1): 14-20.
10.1002/path.2452
CrossRef
British Journal of Cancer
Ki-67 expression and patients survival in lung cancer: systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis
Martin, B; Paesmans, M; Mascaux, C; Berghmans, T; Lothaire, P; Meert, AP; Lafitte, JJ; Sculier, JP
British Journal of Cancer, 91(): 2018-2025.
10.1038/sj.bjc.6602233
CrossRef
Journal of Reproductive Medicine
Current issues in the pathology of ovarian cancer
Rabban, JT; Bell, DA
Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 50(6): 467-474.

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Primary peritoneal carcinoma in a UK cancer center: comparison with advanced ovarian carcinoma over a 5-year period
Jaaback, KS; Ludeman, L; Clayton, NL; Hirschowitz, L
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 16(): 123-128.

Gynecologic Oncology
Testing of two binary grading systems for FIGO stage III serous carcinoma of the ovary and peritoneum
Seidman, JD; Horkayne-Szakaly, I; Cosin, JA; Ryu, HS; Haiba, M; Boice, CR; Yemelyanova, AV
Gynecologic Oncology, 103(2): 703-708.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.05.030
CrossRef
Cancer Science
StAR and progesterone producing enzymes (30-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase and cholesterol side-chain cleavage cytochromes P450) in human epithelial ovarian carcinoma: Immunohistochemical and real-time PCR studies
Abd-Elaziz, M; Moriya, T; Akahira, J; Suzuki, T; Sasano, H
Cancer Science, 96(4): 232-239.
10.1111/j.1349-7006.2005.00040.x
CrossRef
International Journal of Cancer
Tumor protein D52 (TPD52) is overexpressed and a gene amplification target in ovarian cancer
Byrne, JA; Balleine, RL; Fejzo, MS; Mercieca, J; Chiew, YE; Livnat, Y; St Heaps, L; Peters, GB; Byth, K; Karlan, BY; Slamon, DJ; Harnett, P; Defazio, A
International Journal of Cancer, 117(6): 1049-1054.
10.1002/ijc.21250
CrossRef
Gynecologic Oncology
Prognostic significance of CD3+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in ovarian carcinoma
Tomsova, M; Melichar, B; Sedlakova, I; Steiner, I
Gynecologic Oncology, 108(2): 415-420.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.10.016
CrossRef
Oncology Reports
Mitochondrial ultrastructure-associated chemotherapy response in ovarian cancer
Saitou, M; Isonishi, S; Hamada, T; Kiyokawa, T; Tachibana, T; Ishikawa, H; Yasuda, M
Oncology Reports, 21(1): 199-204.
10.3892/or_00000208
CrossRef
Modern Pathology
Intraepithelial T cells and prognosis in ovarian carcinoma: novel associations with stage, tumor type, and BRCA1 loss
Clarke, B; Tinker, AV; Lee, CH; Subramanian, S; van de Rijn, M; Turbin, D; Kalloger, S; Han, G; Ceballos, K; Cadungog, MG; Huntsman, DG; Coukos, G; Gilks, CB
Modern Pathology, 22(3): 393-402.
10.1038/modpathol.2008.191
CrossRef
Gynecologic Oncology
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum
Schmeler, KM; Sun, CC; Bodurka, DC; Deavers, MT; Malpica, A; Coleman, RL; Ramirez, PT; Gershenson, DM
Gynecologic Oncology, 108(3): 510-514.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.11.013
CrossRef
Modern Pathology
Immunohistochemical analysis of possible chemoresistance markers identified by micro-arrays on serous ovarian carcinomas
Tetu, B; Popa, I; Bairati, I; L'Esperance, S; Bachvarova, M; Plante, M; Harel, F; Bachvarov, D
Modern Pathology, 21(8): 1002-1010.
10.1038/modpathol.2008.80
CrossRef
Gynecologic Oncology
The haplotype of two FSHR polymorphisms in ovarian cancer-A potential role of ethnology in risk modification
Heubner, M; Riemann, K; Otterbach, F; Kimmig, R; Kasimir-Bauer, S; Siffert, W; Wimberger, P
Gynecologic Oncology, 112(3): 486-489.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.011
CrossRef
European Journal of Clinical Investigation
The balance between extracellular cathepsins and cystatin C is of importance for ovarian cancer
Kolwijck, E; Kos, J; Obermajer, N; Span, PN; Thomas, CMG; Massuger, LFAG; Sweep, FCGJ
European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 40(7): 591-599.
10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02305.x
CrossRef
Cancer
Pathology and classification of ovarian tumors
Chen, VW; Ruiz, B; Killeen, JL; Cote, TR; Wu, XC; Correa, CN
Cancer, 97(): 2631-+.
10.1002/cncr.11345
CrossRef
Journal of Pathology
Expression of BRCA I protein in benign, borderline, and malignant epithelial ovarian neoplasms and its relationship to methylation and allelic loss of the BRCA I gene
Wang, C; Horiuchi, A; Imai, T; Ohira, S; Itoh, K; Nikaido, T; Katsuyama, Y; Konishi, I
Journal of Pathology, 202(2): 215-223.
10.1002/path.1507
CrossRef
Bmc Cancer
Ovarian carcinomas with genetic and epigenetic BRCA1 loss have distinct molecular abnormalities
Press, JZ; De Luca, A; Boyd, N; Young, S; Troussard, A; Ridge, Y; Kaurah, P; Kalloger, SE; Blood, KA; Smith, M; Spellman, PT; Wang, Y; Miller, DM; Horsman, D; Faham, M; Gilks, CB; Gray, J; Huntsman, DG
Bmc Cancer, 8(): -.
ARTN 17
CrossRef
Histopathology
Overexpression of osteopontin in clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: close association with HNF-1 beta expression
Kato, N; Motoyama, T
Histopathology, 52(6): 682-688.
10.1111/j.1365-2559.2008.03006.x
CrossRef
International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology
Epidermal growth factor-induced ovarian carcinoma cell migration is associated with JAK2/STAT3 signals and changes in the abundance and localization of alpha 6 beta 1 integrin
Colomiere, M; Findlay, J; Ackland, L; Ahmed, N
International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, 41(5): 1034-1045.
10.1016/j.biocel.2008.09.018
CrossRef
Key Advances in the Clinical Management of Ovarian Cancer
Pathology and its prognostic importance
Wells, M
Key Advances in the Clinical Management of Ovarian Cancer, (): 27-32.

Cancer Science
Nuclear expression of S100A4 is associated with aggressive behavior of epithelial ovarian carcinoma: An important autocrine/paracrine factor in tumor progression
Kikuchi, N; Horiuchi, A; Osada, R; Imai, T; Wang, CJ; Chen, XJ; Konishi, I
Cancer Science, 97(): 1061-1069.
10.1111/j.1349-7006.2006.00295.x
CrossRef
Pathology
AGR2 expression in ovarian tumours: a potential biomarker for endometrioid and mucinous differentiation
Armes, JE; Davies, CM; Wallace, S; Taheri, T; Perrin, LC; Autelitano, DJ
Pathology, 45(1): 49-54.
10.1097/PAT.0b013e32835bd561
CrossRef
Histology and Histopathology
Phenotypic characterization of hereditary epithelial ovarian cancer based on a tissue microarray study
Munoz-Repeto, I; Garcia, MJ; Kamieniak, M; Cajal, TRY; Domingo, S; Cazorla, A; Donas, JG; Polo, SH; Sagredo, JMG; Hernandez, E; Lacambra, C; Saez, R; Robles, L; Borrego, S; Prat, J; Palacios, J; Benitez, J
Histology and Histopathology, 28(1): 133-144.

The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
Description of a Novel System for Grading of Endometrial Carcinoma and Comparison With Existing Grading Systems
Miller, D; Gilks, CB; Alkushi, A; Abdul-Rahman, ZH; Lim, P; Schulzer, M; Coldman, A; Kalloger, SE
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 29(3): 295-304.

PDF (891)
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Ovary: A Morphologic Study of 100 Cases With Emphasis on Differential Diagnosis
Eichhorn, JH; Young, RH
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 28(4): 453-463.

PDF (3013)
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
Grading Ovarian Serous Carcinoma Using a Two-Tier System
Malpica, A; Deavers, MT; Lu, K; Bodurka, DC; Atkinson, EN; Gershenson, DM; Silva, EG
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 28(4): 496-504.

PDF (752)
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
Clear Cell Adenocarcinoma Associated With Clear Cell Adenofibromatous Components: A Subgroup of Ovarian Clear Cell Adenocarcinoma With Distinct Clinicopathologic Characteristics
Yamamoto, S; Tsuda, H; Yoshikawa, T; Kudoh, K; Kita, T; Furuya, K; Tamai, S; Matsubara, O
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 31(7): 999-1006.
10.1097/01.pas.0000249449.13466.3c
PDF (675) | CrossRef
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
Mixed Ovarian Epithelial Carcinomas With Clear Cell and Serous Components are Variants of High-grade Serous Carcinoma: An Interobserver Correlative and Immunohistochemical Study of 32 Cases
Soslow, RA; Han, G; Gilks, CB; Leung, S; Ewanowich, CA; Irving, JA; Longacre, TA
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 32(7): 955-964.
10.1097/PAS.0b013e318164edf7
PDF (936) | CrossRef
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
Two-Tier Grading System for Ovarian Epithelial Cancer: Has its Time Arrived?
Roth, LM
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 31(8): 1285-1287.
10.1097/PAS.0b013e318030616f
PDF (67) | CrossRef
Advances in Anatomic Pathology
Ovarian Low-grade and High-grade Serous Carcinoma: Pathogenesis, Clinicopathologic and Molecular Biologic Features, and Diagnostic Problems
Vang, R; Shih, I; Kurman, RJ
Advances in Anatomic Pathology, 16(5): 267-282.
10.1097/PAP.0b013e3181b4fffa
PDF (2633) | CrossRef
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Clinical Behavior of Stage II-IV Low-Grade Serous Carcinoma of the Ovary
Gershenson, DM; Sun, CC; Lu, KH; Coleman, RL; Sood, AK; Malpica, A; Deavers, MT; Silva, EG; Bodurka, DC
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 108(2): 361-368.
10.1097/01.AOG.0000227787.24587.d1
PDF (226) | CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Immunohistochemical localization of metallothionein in benign and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors
Mccluggage, W; Strand, K; Abdulkadir, A
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 12(1): 62-65.

PDF (224)
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Clear Cell Carcinoma Compared to Serous Carcinoma in Early Ovarian Cancer: Same Prognosis in a Large Randomized Trial
Timmers, P; Zwinderman, A; Teodorovic, I; Vergote, I; Trimbos, J
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 19(1): 88-93.
10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181991546
PDF (430) | CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Significance of E2F‐1 overexpression in epithelial ovarian cancer
SUH, DS; YOON, MS; CHOI, KU; KIM, JY
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 18(3): 492-498.

PDF (266)
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Prognostic Value of Histologic Grading of Ovarian Carcinomas
Sato, Y; Shimamoto, T; Amada, S; Asada, Y; Hayashi, T
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 22(1): 52-56.

PDF (600)
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Relation Between Laminin-5 γ2 Chain and Cell Surface Metalloproteinase MT1-MMP in Clear Cell Carcinoma of the Ovary
Kato, N; Motoyama, T
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 28(1): 49-54.
10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181808021
PDF (317) | CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Primary Ovarian Mucinous Carcinoma of Intestinal Type: Significance of Pattern of Invasion and Immunohistochemical Expression Profile in a Series of 31 Cases
Mehl, E; Gilks, CB; Tabrizi, AD; Kalloger, SE; Köbel, M; Cipollone, J; Roskelley, CD
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 29(2): 99-107.
10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181bbbcc1
PDF (360) | CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Immunolocalization of Nuclear Transcription Factors, DAX-1 and Ad4BP/SF-1, in Human Common Epithelial Ovarian Tumors: Correlations With StAR and Steroidogenic Enzymes in Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma
Abd-Elaziz, M; Moriya, T; Akahira, J; Nakamura, Y; Suzuki, T; Sasano, H
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 24(2): 153-163.

PDF (294)
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Ezrin Promotes Ovarian Carcinoma Cell Invasion and Its Retained Expression Predicts Poor Prognosis in Ovarian Carcinoma
Köbel, M; Gradhand, E; Zeng, K; Schmitt, WD; Kriese, K; Lantzsch, T; Wolters, M; Dittmer, J; Strauss, HG; Thomssen, C; Hauptmann, S
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 25(2): 121-130.
10.1097/01.pgp.0000185410.39050.ac
PDF (4944) | CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Histologic Subtypes of Ovarian Carcinoma: An Overview
Soslow, RA
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 27(2): 161-174.
10.1097/PGP.0b013e31815ea812
PDF (6307) | CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Subclassification of Ovarian Surface Epithelial Tumors Based on Correlation of Histologic and Molecular Pathologic Data
Gilks, CB
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 23(3): 200-205.
10.1097/01.pgp.0000130446.84670.93
PDF (569) | CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Clinical Value of Morphometric and DNA Flow Cytometric Variables as Independent Predictors of Survival in Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma: A 5-year Follow-up Study
Vos, MC; Veerman, MM; van der Wurff, AA; van de Water, M; Kruitwagen, RF; Feijen, HW
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 28(5): 432-441.
10.1097/PGP.0b013e31819b2864
PDF (190) | CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Grading of Ovarian Carcinomas
Mayr, D; Diebold, J
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 19(4): 348-353.

PDF (611)
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Ovarian Carcinomas in Endometriosis: An Immunohistochemical and Comparative Genomic Hybridization Study
Mhawech, P; Kinkel, K; Vlastos, G; Pelte, M
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 21(4): 401-406.

PDF (965)
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Abnormalities of the RB1 Pathway in Ovarian Serous Papillary Carcinoma as Determined by Overexpression of the p16(INK4A) Protein
Armes, JE; Lourie, R; de Silva, M; Stamaratis, G; Boyd, A; Kumar, B; Price, G; Hyde, S; Allen, D; Grant, P; Venter, DJ
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 24(4): 363-368.

PDF (573)
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
Significantly Greater Expression of ER, PR, and ECAD in Advanced-Stage Low-Grade Ovarian Serous Carcinoma as Revealed by Immunohistochemical Analysis
Wong, K; Lu, KH; Malpica, A; Bodurka, DC; Shvartsman, HS; Schmandt, RE; Thornton, AD; Deavers, MT; Silva, EG; Gershenson, DM
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 26(4): 404-409.
10.1097/pgp.0b013e31803025cd
PDF (6049) | CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology
The Clinical Importance of Ki-67, p16, p14, and p57 Expression in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma
Khouja, MH; Baekelandt, M; Nesland, JM; Holm, R
International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, 26(4): 418-425.
10.1097/pgp.0b013e31804216a0
PDF (455) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline
Keywords:

Ovary; Carcinoma; Grading

© 2000 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login

Article Tools

Images

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.