Grading of serous ovarian carcinoma: Further evidence of a lack of agreement between conventional grading systems [3]

Histopathology

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 393-395

  Singh, N ^a   Ayhan, A ^b   Menon, U ^c   Chin Aleong, J A ^a   Faruqi, A Z ^a   Gayther, S A ^c   Jacobs, I J ^c  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b SEIREI MIKATAHARA GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER GRADING; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; LETTER; MUCINOUS CARCINOMA; OVARY CARCINOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CYSTADENOCARCINOMA, SEROUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 38849111119     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02912.x     Document Type: Letter

References (13)

1. Le T, Adolph A, Krepart GV, Lotocki R, Heywood MS. The benefits of comprehensive surgical staging in the management of early-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 2002 85 351 355.
2. Gadducci A, Sartori E, Maggino T et al. Analysis of failures after negative second look in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: an Italian multicenter study. Gynecol. Oncol. 1998 68 150 155.
3. Mayr D, Diebold J. Grading of ovarian carcinomas. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2000 19 348 353.
4. 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.
5. Silverberg SG. Histopathologic grading of ovarian carcinoma: a review and proposal. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2000 19 7 15.
6. Malpica A, Deavers MT, Lu K et al. Grading ovarian serous carcinoma using a two-tier system. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2004 28 496 504.
7. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. Tumours of the ovary and peritoneum. IARC Press : World Health Organisation Classification of Tumours: Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs, 2003.
8. The Royal College of Pathologists. Standards and Minimum Datasets for Reporting Cancers. Minimum dataset for the histopathological reporting of ovarian tumours, and Fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinomas. The Royal College of Pathologists. London : 2005. http://www.rcpath.org.
9. Shih I, Kurman RJ. Ovarian tumorigenesis: a proposed model based on morphological and molecular genetic analysis. Am. J. Pathol. 2004 164 1511 1518.
10. Bell DA. Origins and molecular pathology of ovarian cancer. Mod. Pathol. 2005 18 (Suppl. 2 S19 S32.
11. Meinhold-Heerlein I, Bauerschlag D, Hilpert F et al. Molecular and prognostic distinction between serous ovarian carcinomas of varying grade and malignant potential. Oncogene 2005 24 1053 1065.
12. O'Neill CJ, Deavers MT, Malpica A, Foster H, McCluggage WG. An immunohistochemical comparison between low-grade and high-grade ovarian serous carcinomas: significantly higher expression of p53, MIB1, BCL2, HER-2/neu, and C-KIT in high-grade neoplasms. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2005 29 1034 1041.
13. Scott M, McCluggage WG. Current concepts in ovarian epithelial tumorigenesis: correlation between morphological and molecular data. Histol. Histopathol. 2006 21 81 92.