No abstract

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOT) are uncommon but not rare epithelial ovarian neoplasms, intermediate between benign and malignant categories. Since BOT were first identified >40 years ago, they have inspired controversies disproportionate to their incidence. This review discusses diagnostic criteria for the histologic subtypes of BOT, highlighting areas of diagnostic challenges, ongoing controversies, and changes in terminology implemented by the recent 2014 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Female Genital Organs. Emerging knowledge supports the notion that subtypes of borderline ovarian tumors comprise distinct biologic, pathogenetic, and molecular entities, precluding a single unifying concept for BOT. Serous borderline tumors (SBT) share molecular and genetic alterations with low-grade serous carcinomas and can present at higher stages with peritoneal implants and/or lymph node involvement, which validates their borderline malignant potential. All other (non-serous) subtypes of BOT commonly present at stage I confined to the ovary(ies) and are associated with overall survival approaching that of the general population. An important change in the WHO 2014 classification is the new terminology of non-invasive implants associated with SBT, as any invasive foci (previously called “invasive implants”) are now in line with their biological behavior considered peritoneal low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC). The controversy regarding the terminology of non-serous borderline tumors, called by some pathologists “atypical proliferative tumor” in view of their largely benign behavior, has not been resolved. The concepts of intraepithelial carcinoma and microinvasion may evolve in further studies, as their presence appears to have no prognostic impact and is subject to considerable inter-observer variability.

CD24 is a small heavily glycosylated glycosylphosphatidylinositol-linked cell surface protein, which is expressed in hematological malignancies as well as in a large variety of solid tumors. Very recently its expression in ovarian cancer has been found on RNA level by chip analysis. We evaluated CD24 protein expression by immunohistochemistry in 9 normal ovaries and 69 epithelial ovarian tumors (5 adenomas, 8 borderline tumors, and 56 carcinomas) with known follow-up data. Surface epithelium of normal ovaries as well as adenomas did not express CD24. In borderline tumors CD24 was expressed in membrane in 75% of cases, whereas cytoplasmic expression was detected in only one of nine cases. In invasive ovarian carcinomas, a membranous expression was detected in 84% and a cytoplasmic expression in 59% of cases. In univariate survival analysis of all invasive ovarian carcinomas, a highly significant association of increased cytoplasmic CD24 expression with shortened patient survival (mean 98 months versus 37 months, P = 0.0002, log rank test) was demonstrated. Other significant prognostic parameters were International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, Silverberg grade, patient age, undifferentiated histological type, and metastatic disease. We did not detect a significant correlation of CD24 with these clinicopathological parameters. In multivariate analysis, only CD24 and FIGO stage were independent prognostic parameters. Our data suggest that the expression of CD24 as detected by immunohistochemistry is a new independent molecular marker for shortened survival time of patients with epithelial ovarian carcinomas.

Ein bemerkenswerter Einfluss auf die elektronischen und geometrischen Eigenschaften von Pd‐Nanopartikeln ergibt sich aus der Modifizierung ihrer Oberfläche mit Polymergruppen. Das Ausmaß der Elektronenverschiebung in Richtung der Pd‐Nanopartikel unter Umgebungsbedingungen hängt von der Verfügbarkeit freier Elektronenpaare in den angebundenen Gruppen ab.