The concept of borderline ovarian tumours was proposed by Taylor in 1929, who called them ‘semimalignant’ because the clinical behaviour of these tumours was intermediate between benign and malignant. These tumours were recognized as a separate entity by WHO in 1973 and were named borderline ovarian tumours 4.
The borderline ovarian tumours share some histological features with malignant epithelial tumours but are characterized by the absence of destructive stromal invasion 5. They may be associated with an extraovarian disease (termed implants rather than metastasis). The implants could be invasive or noninvasive. The staging is based on principles same as those for ovarian carcinoma. However, in contrast to their malignant counterparts, borderline ovarian tumours (BOTs) have much better prognosis at every stage 6.
In the past, these tumours were treated aggressively, similar to their invasive counterparts. More recently, after recognition of their intermediate status between benign and malignant ovarian tumours in terms of histology, clinical behaviour, and prognosis, as well as the younger mean age of the patients at the time of diagnosis, conservative therapeutic approaches have been adopted 7.
Approximately 80% of these tumours are diagnosed at stage I or II. The prognosis is better compared with other ovarian malignancies 8.
The detection and nature of extraovarian implants determines to a great extent the prognosis of BOT 9. Noninvasive implants are common, and their presence appears to have no significant influence on survival 10. The prognosis of patients with noninvasive implants is excellent, and conservative surgery can be recommended in such patients. In contrast, prognosis for patients with invasive implants is less optimistic. Therefore, the scope of conservative surgery is limited 11.
In addition to extraovarian extension, the clinical stage, histological type and residual tumour also affect the prognosis 12. HRT is not associated with the development of BOT 13.
The survival rate is not significantly different after conservative treatment as compared with radical surgery 14; however, the recurrence rate varies between 0 and 30% 6.
Zanetta and colleagues studied 339 women treated for borderline ovarian tumours, of which 24 women with peritoneal implants were treated conservatively. The disease-free survival of patients with stage II and III disease was similar, regardless of the type of surgical treatment (conservative or radical). The recurrence rate was however higher for women undergoing fertility sparing surgery (35/189 women, 18.5%) compared with women undergoing hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (7/150 women, 4.7%). All but one woman with recurrence of borderline tumour or progression to carcinoma after conservative surgery were salvaged 15.
Conservative laparoscopic surgery for BOT can be safely performed in young patients during early stages of the disease as this reduces the risk of postoperative adhesions and optimizes fertility results. The recurrence rate is same as that after laparotomy. The recurrence is particularly high after cystectomy (30–35%) 16. Therefore, cystectomy, as a conservative treatment for BOT, should only be considered in bilateral tumours (with contralateral adnexectomy) or in cases in which there is only one ovary (history of previous oophorectomy) 17.
Spontaneous conceptions have been reported after conservative surgery. Some patients require fertility treatment. The influence of fertility treatment on the development of ovarian malignancy is controversial. History of infertility increases the overall risk of ovarian cancer. It was suggested that high serum oestradiol levels during ovarian hyperstimulation might promote tumour growth in BOT, especially in oestrogen receptor-positive cases. This risk is very low in patients treated for early-stage BOT 3.
Camatte and colleagues observed eight pregnancies in seven out of 17 (41%) patients with stage II and III BOT and noninvasive implants after conservative surgery. There were six spontaneous conceptions, one occurred after ovarian stimulation and another after IVF treatment. Interestingly, four pregnancies occurred after the second conservative surgery for recurrent BOT of the spared ovary. The recurrence rate was 52% but survival was 100% after a median follow-up of 60 months 11.
In another study, five patients who underwent a previous conservative surgery for BOT (stage Ia–c) received 17 IVF cycles. Six pregnancies were observed in three of the five patients. One patient had three recurrences at 13, 27 and 43 months after the first IVF cycle, all of which remained S-BOT histologically. All patients were without evidence of the disease at the time of last follow-up. The mean follow-up period was 39.2 months 18.
Chan et al. 3 reported 16 patients who underwent IVF after conservative treatment for borderline ovarian tumours. No recurrence was reported during the follow-up period of up to 46 months 3.
Chan et al. 3 reported 10 IVF cycles in five infertile patients after conservative surgery for BOT. Recurrence was not reported in any of these patients after IVF treatment up to a mean duration of 29.6 months (range 14–61 months). This study also showed that prior diagnosis and treatment of BOT have no perceptible negative impact on pregnancy outcomes after IVF treatment, and it can safely be offered to patients with early-stage BOT.
To date, there is no evidence in the literature to restrict the use of artificial reproductive techniques in patients with early-stage BOT after conservative treatment.
This case appears unusual. The patient had undergone conservative surgery for bilateral borderline serous ovarian tumours with noninvasive implants (stage IIIc). She was on cyclical HRT and remained well up to 10 years of follow-up.
Unopposed oestrogen stimulation for a short period of 12 days precipitated recurrence with progression to low-grade serous adenocarcinoma. The clinical behaviour of the tumour appeared far more aggressive than expected in view of the histology.
This case suggests that borderline tumours may recur in an aggressive manner, and they should not be underestimated.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
1. Tulpin L, Rouzier R, Morel O, Malartic C, Daraï E, Barranger E. Borderline ovarian tumors: an update. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2008;36:422–429
2. Donnez J, Munschke A, Berliere M, Pirard C, Jadoul P, Smets M, Squifflet J. Safety of conservative management and fertility
outcome in women with borderline tumors of the ovary. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1216–1221
3. Chan WP, Kwang MY, Hye OK, Sung RH, Tae JK, Kyung TL, et al. Outcomes of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation/in vitro
fertilization for infertile patients with borderline ovarian tumor after conservative treatment. J Korean Med Sci. 2007;22(Suppl):S134–S138
4. Yokoyama Y, Moriya T, Takano T, Shoji T, Takahashi O, Nakahara K, et al. Clinical outcome and risk factors for recurrence in borderline ovarian tumours
. Br J Cancer. 2006;94:1586–1591
5. Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Leo G, Vergara D, Martignago R, Pellegrino M. Borderline ovarian tumors: new insights and old challenge. J Chinese Clin Med. 2009;4:343–352
6. Ahmed ASM, Lawton FG. Borderline ovarian tumours
: current concepts and management. Rev Gynaecol Pract. 2005;5:139–151
7. Tinelli R, Malzoni M, Cosentino F, Perone C, Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Cicinelli E. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of conservative laparoscopic treatment of borderline ovarian tumors. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:736–741
8. Dede M, Çiftpinar T, Küçük T, Yenen MC, Muhçu M, Başer I. Fertility
following conservative management of stage I borderline tumor of the ovary. Gulhane Med J. 2006;48:229–231
9. Denert C, Dietel M. Borderline tumours of the ovary and peritoneal implants. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol. 2005;89:84–91
10. Chang S-J, Ryu H-S, Chang K-H, Yoo S-C, Yoon J-H. Prognostic significance of the micropapillary pattern in patients with serous borderline ovarian tumors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87:476–481
11. Camatte S, Morice P, Pautier P, Atallah D, Duvillard P, Castaigne D. Fertility
results after conservative treatment of advanced stage serous borderline tumour of the ovary. BJOG. 2002;109:376–380
12. Tropé CG, Kristensen G, Makar A. Surgery for borderline tumor of the ovary. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;19:69–75
13. Harris R, Whittemore AS, Itnyre J, Casagrande JT, Cramer D, Hartge P, et al. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case–control studies. III. Epithelial tumors of low malignant potential in white women. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136:1204–1211
14. Seracchioli R, Venturoli S, Colombo FM, Govoni F, Missiroli S, Bagnoli A. Fertility
and tumor recurrence rate after conservative laparoscopic management of young women with early-stage borderline ovarian tumors. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:999–1004
15. Zanetta G, Rota S, Chiari S, Bonazzi C, Bratina G, Mangioni C. Behavior of borderline tumors with particular interest to persistence, recurrence, and progression to invasive carcinoma: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2658–2664
16. Camatte S, Morice P, Atallah D, Thoury A, Pautier P, Lhommé C, et al. Clinical outcome after laparoscopic pure management of borderline ovarian tumors: results of a series of 34 patients. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:605–609
17. Poncelet C, Fauvet R, Boccara J, Daraï E. Recurrence after cystectomy for borderline ovarian tumors: results of a French multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:565–571
18. Fasouliotis SJ, Davis O, Schattman G, Spandorfer SD, Kligman I, Rosenwaks Z. Safety and efficacy of infertility treatment after conservative management of borderline ovarian tumors: a preliminary report. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:568–572
Keywords:© 2013 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
assisted conception; borderline ovarian tumours; fertility