4.6 Article

Mucinous borderline tumours of the ovary and the appendix: A retrospective study and overview of the literature

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 133, 期 2, 页码 155-158

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.013

关键词

Borderline tumour of the ovary; Appendix

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Appendectomy is often recommended in patients with mucinous borderline ovarian tumours (mBOTs) based on studies suggesting that metastatic disease from a primary appendiceal tumour can mimic mBOT. The present study assessed the incidence of mucinous neoplasms in the appendix associated with the presence of mBOT. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed in two university hospitals in the Netherlands between 1990 and 2011. All patients with mBOT and/or a mucinous appendiceal tumour were included. Results. Of 127 patients included, 98 had a primary mBOT and 29 had a primary mucinous appendiceal tumour. In patients with a mBOT, the appendix was either removed at prior surgery (4%), resected as part of the staging procedure showing no pathological abnormalities (13%), described as normal and not resected (58%), or not described and not resected (25%). During a median follow-up period of 5 years (range 2-23), two patients developed a recurrence in which the appendix was not involved. In all patients with a primary mucinous tumour of the appendix, the appendix appeared abnormal at the time of surgery. Eight of these patients (28%) were diagnosed with invasive ovarian metastases. A review of the literature including the cases from this study identified 510 mucinous ovarian tumours with borderline features and 214 associated appendectomies, of which 4 (1.9%) contained a primary appendiceal malignancy. Conclusions. A thorough inspection of the appendix should be performed in patients with a mucinous ovarian tumour with borderline features. An appendectomy should only be performed when the appendix is macroscopically abnormal. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据