Next Article in Journal
Localization Techniques for Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: Current Status, Knowledge Gaps, and Rationale for the MELODY Study (EUBREAST-4/iBRA-NET, NCT 05559411)
Next Article in Special Issue
Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma in U.S. Population: Racial Disparities, Survival Benefit of Adjuvant Chemoradiation and Future Personalized Treatment with Genomic Landscape
Previous Article in Journal
CAR-Based Immunotherapy of Solid Tumours—A Survey of the Emerging Targets
Previous Article in Special Issue
DNA Damage Response Alterations in Ovarian Cancer: From Molecular Mechanisms to Therapeutic Opportunities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/cancers15041172
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Update on Prognostic and Predictive Markers in Mucinous Ovarian Cancer

by
Fulvio Borella
1,
Marco Mitidieri
2,
Stefano Cosma
1,
Chiara Benedetto
1,
Luca Bertero
3,
Stefano Fucina
1,
Isabelle Ray-Coquard
4,
Annalisa Carapezzi
5,* and
Domenico Ferraioli
4,6,*
1
Gynecology and Obstetrics 1U, Departments of Surgical Sciences, City of Health and Science, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy
2
Gynecology and Obstetrics SC4, Departments of Surgical Sciences, City of Health and Science, 10126 Turin, Italy
3
Pathology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy
4
Leon Berard Comprehensive Cancer Center, 69008 Lyon, France
5
Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy
6
Hospital Group South Doors, 69200 Vénissieux, France
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(4), 1172; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041172
Submission received: 29 December 2022 / Revised: 2 February 2023 / Accepted: 7 February 2023 / Published: 12 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovations in Diagnosis, Prognostic Evaluation, and Therapeutic Management of Gynecologic Tumors)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Mucinous ovarian cancer (MOC) is a rare tumor that can be classified according to stage in early MOC and advanced MOC. Early MOC is characterized by a good prognosis and, in most cases, surgical treatment alone represents the mainstay of therapy. Despite the good prognosis, some early-stage MOCs can relapse and exhibit aggressive behavior, and new biomarkers are emerging to better stratify these patients. Advanced MOC, instead, is characterized by a poor prognosis. Radical surgery is still the mainstay of treatment since these tumors are chemo-resistant. New targeted therapies are being studied to improve the prognosis in this setting, but unfortunately, none of these have been approved yet. This review focuses on the most relevant clinical, pathological, and molecular features and treatment options according to prognosis.

Abstract

This review includes state-of-the-art prognostic and predictive factors of mucinous ovarian cancer (MOC), a rare tumor. Clinical, pathological, and molecular features and treatment options according to prognosis are comprehensively discussed. Different clinical implications of MOC are described according to the The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage: early MOC (stage I-II) and advanced MOC (stage III-IV). Early MOC is characterized by a good prognosis. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment. Fertility-sparing surgery could be performed in patients who wish to become pregnant and that present low recurrence risk of disease. Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended, except in patients with high-risk clinical and pathological features. Regarding the histological features, an infiltrative growth pattern is the major prognostic factor of MOC. Furthermore, novel molecular biomarkers are emerging for tailored management of early-stage MOC. In contrast, advanced MOC is characterized by poor survival. Radical surgery is the cornerstone of treatment and adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended, although the efficacy is limited by the intrinsic chemoresistance of these tumors. Several molecular hallmarks of advanced MOC have been described in recent years (e.g., HER2 amplification, distinct methylation profiles, peculiar immunological microenvironment), but target therapy for these rare tumors is not available yet.

1. Introduction

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the seventh most-frequent cancer worldwide and the eighth-most-common cause of cancer death in women [1]. The incidence of OC increases with age and is highest in the sixth and seventh decades of life [2], with 239,000 new cases (3.6% of all cancer cases) and 152,000 deaths annually (4.3% of all cancer deaths) [3]. OC includes a highly heterogeneous group of neoplasms, including different histological subtypes with distinct clinical presentations, molecular features, and prognostic outcomes [4]. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most common histological type (90% of all malignant EOC) and, according to Kurman et al. [5], is classified into type 1 tumors, which include low-grade serous carcinoma, endometrioid carcinoma, clear cell carcinoma, and mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC), and type 2 tumors, which include high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSOC), carcinosarcoma, and undifferentiated carcinoma. Type 1 EOCs are usually large single cystic neoplasms with an indolent and slow progression. These tumors rarely show TP53 mutations, have low chromosomal instability, low frequency of homologous recombination defect, and actionable mutations can be present. Conversely, type 2 EOCs show rapid and aggressive progression and poor prognosis. TP53 is frequently mutated and high chromosomal instability and homologous recombination defects are often reported. Compared with type 1 tumors, type 2 EOCs show a high rate of response to chemotherapy but with more recurrences [5]. While HGSOC is the most frequent histological subtype, MOC is sporadic, and its incidence has often been erroneously cited as comprising 5–10% of EOC [6]. However, according to multiple reports, the true proportion of MOC is between 1 and 3% [7]. MOC represents a distinct entity from other histotypes of EOC due to its peculiar behavior, molecular profile, response to chemotherapy, and prognosis compared to the more common HGSOC.
MOC can be confused with metastatic tumors from other organs, especially gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas. Several clinical algorithms based on the size and laterality of lesions have recently shown good sensitivity to predict the primary origin of MOC [6,8], which is normally characterized by the presence of a large (>10 cm) and unilateral mass in patients aged 20–40 years [9]. Immunohistochemistry and genomic profile may also be useful to confirm the ovarian origin of the mucinous tumor [10]. Normally, the typical immunohistochemical profile of primary MOC is characterized by expression of cytokeratin (CK) 7 and may variably show CK 20, caudal type homeobox 2 (CDX2), estrogen receptor (ER), and progesterone receptor (PgR) positivity. Conversely, paired-box gene 8 PAX8, Wilms’ tumor (WT1), and special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2 (SATB2) are negative [11].
Despite the identification of suggestive clinical parameters and histological characterization of MOCs, the differential diagnosis between primary MOCs and metastatic tumors remains challenging, particularly during the intraoperative assessment of advanced stages [12,13]. A recent study demonstrated that MOC arises from benign and borderline ovarian tumors. Key drivers of progression from benign/borderline lesions to invasive MOC are TP5 mutation and copy number aberrations, including a notable amplicon on 9p13. Interestingly, a high copy number aberration burden is associated with a worse prognosis in MOC [14].
Primary MOC is generally detected at an early stage, with 83% being diagnosed at stage I and only 17% at stage II or higher [15]. While overall survival (OS) is excellent for early-stage disease [13,16,17], it is drastically worse in the advanced stages [17,18]. These poor survival outcomes are thought to reflect not only inherently aggressive tumor biology but also resistance to currently available chemotherapeutic approaches [17].
Several prognostic markers seem to play different roles in early and advanced MOC [18,19]. However, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage system remains the main prognostic factor in MOC patients because the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate is 98% in stage I cases compared to 35% and 14% for stages II through IV [13]. Furthermore, the risk of death when advanced MOC is compared with advanced serous EOC is almost double (hazard ratio—HR: 1.82, 95% confidence interval—CI 1.71–1.94) [19].
Given this background, there is an urgent need to identify new novel predictive markers to chemoresponse, and new prognostic factors in MOCs with early recurrence and poor survival.
This review aims to analyze the different predictive factors of recurrence in these rare tumors, with an emphasis on recent research progress reported in the literature.

2. Early MOC

2.1. Histopathological Prognostic Factors

In the last two decades, different histopathological features, such as the growth pattern (expansive vs. infiltrative stroma invasion), capsule status (rupture vs. no rupture), and tumor grade, have been described in the literature and correlated with survival outcomes for early-stage MOC [20,21,22,23,24,25].
In primary MOC, the need to determine the histological grade and its clinical value has not yet been completely established. To date, two different approaches to assess tumor grade have been recommended. First, the latest World Health Organization classification of gynecological tract tumors does not include any grading schema for this tumor category because the Silverberg system grading, which was based on a combined score, including the predominant architecture (1: glandular, 2: papillary, 3: solid), nuclear atypia (1: mild, 2: moderate, 3: severe) and mitotic activity per 10 high-power fields (1 for 0–9, 2 for 10–24, 3 for ≥25), was recently removed [26]. Second, the latest recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting on ovarian cancer suggest that, if histological grading of MOC is undertaken, the FIGO grading system for endometrioid carcinomas should be used, based on the percentage of the solid component (G1: <5%, G2: between 5 and 50%, G3: >50%), with an upgrade by one in the presence of severe nuclear atypia [27]. Discordant results have been described in the literature concerning the prognostic role of tumor grading in MOC. Ishioka et al. reported that both systems (Silverberg and FIGO systems) have prognostic significance, but that the Silverberg system was superior in predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis [28]. In contrast, two other studies reported that the Silverberg grading and/or FIGO system did not show any prognostic value [23,29]. Recently, Busca et al. compared these two different grading systems and concluded that only Silverberg grading is associated with survival outcomes. Furthermore, they proposed a new binary grading system, named growth-based grading (presence and quantification of infiltrative and expansive growth patterns), that seems to have a good correlation with survival outcomes [30]. However, in primary MOC, the debate on which system should be used to determine the histological grade and its prognostic value remains open.
In early MOC, the main prognostic histopathological factor seems to be the type of growth pattern (expansive vs. invasive) [31,32,33,34]. In particular, while the MOC infiltrative subtype has an increased rate of local and distant recurrence (peritoneal spread and lymph node involvement) with poor survival outcomes, the MOC expansive subtype has a low metastatic potential and low risk of recurrence. Because the infiltrative pattern is much more frequent in metastatic mucinous non-ovarian cancer, when the tumor shows this characteristic, a secondary neoplasm must be excluded [21,22,23,24,25]. To date, the pattern of tumor invasion, which is one of the most important histological prognostic features described in the literature, is not incorporated into any grading system available.
Table 1 summarized the main published data on histological features in early stage of primary MOC.

2.2. Surgical Prognostic Factors

Surgery (bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy) represents the cornerstone of treatment for FIGO stage I MOC, and when performed alone, the 5-year survival rate is 90.8%, which is higher than other EOC histotypes [7,35,36,37].
A factor that could be associated with prognosis is the perioperative capsule status. Indeed, capsule rupture in early EOC, which can occur in the pre-operative (spontaneous spill) and intraoperative (surgical spill) settings, upstages patients from IA or IB to IC1 or IC2. Several studies have been published on this topic but its prognostic value in early-stage EOC is still controversial. Vergote et al. showed that a shorter DFS is correlated with capsule rupture, regardless of its occurrence in the pre- or intraoperative setting [38]. In contrast, based on a meta-analysis, including 2382 patients, intraoperative rupture may not decrease progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with no rupture in patients with early-stage EOC [39]. However, Kajiyama et al. underlined that peri- or intraoperative capsule rupture is associated with a poorer oncological outcome in MOC [25]. To date, although the prognostic value of capsule rupture in MOC is not completely proven, surgical spilling should be avoided.
The assessment of pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph nodes remains the main topic of debate in early-stage MOC. Several studies have reported that surgical lymph node dissection is unnecessary because it does not have a significant impact on OS and DFS [40,41] due to a low presence (from 0% to 2.1%) of lymph node metastasis and, consequently, a low risk of upstaging [42,43,44]. Furthermore, in patients with clinically apparent early MOC who initially received complete surgery without full-staging lymphadenectomy (full peritoneal and clinical lymph node evaluation), a second surgery to evaluate pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes does not seem to be necessary [41,45]. Gouy et al. confirmed that lymph node assessment could be omitted in the expansive MOC subtype, but this procedure is required for infiltrative MOC cases, during either the initial or restaging surgery [46]. More recently, a study that included 4379 patients from the National Cancer Database with apparent stage IA and IC MOC showed that lymph node metastases were found in 1.2% and 1.6% of patients with stage IA and IC disease, respectively (p-value = 0.063). However, they were present in 0.6% of patients with grade 1 tumors, 1.1% of patients with grade 2 tumors, and 5.3% of patients with grade 3 tumors (p-value < 0.001). These results confirm that lymph node metastases are rare in these patients but, again, emphasize the prognostic role of tumor grade and suggest considering tumor grading when making decisions regarding the need for lymphadenectomy in early-stage MOCs [47].
The need for appendectomy and its prognostic role in the surgical treatment of early MOC remains another major topic of debate. A recent meta-analysis that included 914 mucinous ovarian neoplasia (borderline and invasive tumors, mostly early stage) estimated histologic appendix tumor involvement in 4.97% of cases, and the pooled odds ratio (OR) showed statistical differences between MOC and borderline tumors (MOC vs. borderline, OR = 2.15; p-value ≤ 0.05). The authors suggested an intraoperative evaluation of the appendix, but an appendectomy may be omitted if the appendix appears grossly normal without tumor infiltration [48]. An analysis of 460 MOCs suggests performing appendectomy only in the case of gross abnormalities of the appendix, intraabdominal/peritoneal disease, or ovarian tumor bilaterality [49].
In a recent analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry, 26% of MOCs were diagnosed in women younger than 44 years and a fertility-sparing treatment should be considered in these patients who desire to have future pregnancies [50]. For early MOC, unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with staging procedures (cytology, peritoneal biopsies, and omentectomy) is a feasible option. The risk of relapse for women with stage I MOC treated with fertility-sparing surgery is low compared with stage I serous cancers (6% vs. 20%, p-value ≤ 0.001) [33,51]. Furthermore, the growth patterns in early-stage MOC (infiltrative vs. expansive) do not influence survival outcomes in patients undergoing fertility-sparing surgery [24]. A recent multicenter study on 222 MOCs showed a 5-year PFS rate of 73% (95% CI, 50–86%) for patients who underwent fertility-preserving surgery; however, the authors considered this PFS rate acceptable for women who underwent fertility preservation [52].

2.3. Adjuvant Chemotherapy

A large study on 4811 patients diagnosed with stage I MOC identified from the U.S National Cancer Database showed no benefits in the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (adjusted HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.85–1.64) [53]. Similar results were reported in a large study that analyzed FIGO stage IC MOC [54]. Adjuvant chemotherapy does not appear to provide significant benefits, even in patients who have undergone fertility-sparing surgery [55]. Of note, a study of 901 patients affected by stage I MOC who underwent fertility-sparing surgery suggested that adjuvant chemotherapy may increase the risk of death [56]. A study performed on 2041 women with stage I MOC from the National Cancer Database stratified patients into low and high risk based on the following parameters: age, stage, grade, lymphovascular space invasion, and ascites. The risk of death considering patients who had undergone chemotherapy vs. those who had not was similar in low-risk patients (88% vs. 84%; HR =0.80, 95% CI: 0.56–1.15, p-value = 0.23) and worse in high-risk patients (51% vs. 74%; HR =1.58, 95% CI: 1.05–2.38, p-value = 0.03) [57]. These authors suggested that some patients with high-risk clinical features may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy [57].
A flowchart to guide the management of the early MOC is available in Figure 1.

2.4. Molecular Prognostic Factors

Several molecular tumor characteristics in MOC have been recently investigated to find new prognostic biomarkers. In particular, the aberrant expression of different proteins, such as G-protein-coupled receptor 158 (GPR158), CHEK1, FOXM1, KIF23, and PARPBP, are associated with decreased DFS and OS [58,59] but further studies should be performed to translate these molecular features into clinical practice.
Early MOCs are also characterized by specific RNA profiles. A large retrospective study on 257 snap-frozen stage I MOCs biopsies showed high levels of miR-192/194 [60]. The expression of the miR-192/194 cluster is directly controlled by wild-type TP53 that, enhancing their transcription, can downregulate genes of G1–G2 phases, targets of these two miRNAs, blocking the cell cycle. In this context, MDM2, a protein that acts as the main inhibitor of TP53, is one of the targets of miR-192/194. This positive feedback loop of TP53-miR-192/194-MDM2 confers a tumor suppressor function to the miR-192/194 cluster [60,61]. A crucial role in this pathway is also played by BMI1, an miR-194 anticorrelated target gene that acts as a CDKN2A protein suppressor [62,63]. CDKN2A prevents the degradation and inactivation of p53 operated by MDM2 [60]. Stage I MOCs in this study showed downregulated MDM2 expression and upregulated CDKN2A [60]. The authors suggested that miR-192/194 could be an important target for developing novel therapeutic strategies for MOC [60].
Compared to other early EOC histotypes, stage I MOCs showed lower expression of ACVR2B and lower expressions of CDK6 and CDK4, features related to a better prognosis [64]. The role of miR-192/194 was confirmed by subsequent studies [65,66], which also found new biomarkers for early MOCs: miR-214-3p and let7a-5p are highly expressed, while miR-96 showed low expression levels [65]. High immune reactivity is also noted in stage I MOC compared with other histotypes [65]. Recently, the same group investigated the genome distribution of somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) in stage I EOC through shallow whole genome sequencing (sWGS), observing three genomic patterns associated with prognosis (stable, unstable, and highly unstable). Most MOC cases were characterized by a lower frequency of regions affected by SCNA (stable or unstable profile) with a good prognosis [67].

3. Advanced MOC

The advanced stages of MOC have a different landscape compared to the early stage because they have a relative resistance to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and poor survival outcomes [9,68]. Concerning the differences with serous carcinomas, the 5-year survival rate for patients with stage III serous EOC was 33.6% compared with 25.7% for MOC and, for stage IV disease, was 20.3% and 10.2%, respectively [7]. Furthermore, in a recent meta-analysis including data from seven different studies, the risk of death was almost double in patients with advanced-stage MOC compared to those with serous EOC [19].

3.1. Histopathological Prognostic Factors

Histopathological prognostic factors in the advanced stage of primary MOC are not completely explored. A recent large retrospective study on 1509 MOCs (1045 stage III and 464 stage IV) showed tumor grading (G1 (21.06 months), G2 (12.22 months), and G3 (11.07 months)), residual disease status (none (23.23 months), <1 cm (12.12months) and >1 cm (6.28 months)), chemotherapy (no (5.06 months) vs. Yes (15.44 months)), stage (III(15.64 months) vs. IV (9.33 months)) and age (<65 years (14.95 months) vs. >65 years (10.61 months)) to be significantly correlated with OS [53]. The worse prognosis of higher-grade MOC was also reported by other authors [30,69].
In another study on 144 metastatic MOCs, the presence of infiltrative invasive pattern, the absence of benign or borderline components, a smaller tumor size, the presence of signet ring cells, and the presence of extracellular mucin were associated with worse survival [70].
Recently, a nomogram to predict cancer-specific survival (CSS) and OS for patients affected by MOC based on clinical, socio-demographic, and histopathological characteristics (age at diagnosis, race, medical insurance, marital status, histological grade, primary side, tumor size, 7th AJCC ovarian cancer stage, TNM stage, and chemotherapy) was developed and could serve as an applicable tool for clinical practice [71].

3.2. Surgical Prognostic Factors

The standard surgical treatment of advanced MOC consists of total macroscopic removal of the tumor, i.e., no residual disease (R0). Similarly to serous advanced OC, several authors reported that optimal debulking is also related to better survival for MOC [17,72,73]. Debulking surgery with the objective of a macroscopically complete resection remains the goal of surgical treatment.
Over the last decade, one of the most intriguing methods adopted for the treatment of advanced EOC is represented by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). In a recent metanalysis, patients treated with HIPEC at the time of cytoreductive surgery showed better OS and PFS compared to patients who did not undergo HIPEC (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.66, HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.62, respectively) [74]. However, the role of HIPEC for MOC treatment is unclear, as this histotype is underrepresented in trials [75,76]. To date, a retrospective analysis including 77 patients with MOC and peritoneal carcinomatosis treated with debulking surgery and HIPEC showed an interesting 5-year OS and DFS of 69.6% and 53.8%, respectively [77], but prospective data on the role of HIPEC for these rare tumors are needed.

3.3. Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Advanced MOC is a chemoresistant tumor; however, in a large study including stage III-IV MOCs, patients who received chemotherapy showed better OS compared to those who did not (median OS 15.44 vs. 5.06 months, p-value ≤ 0.001) [53].
Due to the biological and molecular similarities of MOC and mucinous colorectal cancer, chemotherapy protocols for colorectal cancer have been proposed as an alternative to the standard carboplatin–paclitaxel regimens usually used for EOC. Unfortunately, the Gynecology Oncology Group trial 241, which was designed to explore the benefit of a colorectal chemotherapy regimen in newly diagnosed MOC, was prematurely stopped for slow and poor accrual. Data from the 50 recruited patients showed no statistically significant differences in PFS and toxicity profiles between the treatment arms [78].
A flowchart to guide the management of advanced MOC is available in Figure 2.

3.4. Molecular Prognostic Factors

Chemoresistance of MOC to the standard treatments prompts interest in the development of targeted molecular therapies. Unfortunately, C-myc overexpression [79], KRAS mutations [80], HER-2 gene amplification [81], and TP53 mutations [82] do not seem to be correlated with tumor prognosis, and no alternative therapeutic options to the conventional chemotherapy regimen are available at the moment. A recent study analyzed clinical, pathologic, and gene-expression data in tumor samples from a large cohort of patients with MOC; the authors found that increased expression of THBS2 and TAGLN is associated with shorter OS (HR: 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04–1.51, p-value = 0.016 and HR: 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01–1.45, p-value = 0.043), respectively, and is related to infiltrative subtypes. These authors observed an elevated expression of HER2 in the early stage and expansive pattern MOC [83].
Another study evaluated the prognostic role of ciliated cell markers expressed in 118 high-grade EOCs by comparing them with normal tubal and endometrial tissue, cystadenomas, and borderline and low-grade ovarian tumors. The expression of ciliated cell markers was associated with a better prognosis and decreased with increasing grade, presence of metastasis, and mucinous histotype [84].
Recently, the role of polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) in MOC biology has been investigated. In a study of MOC cell lines, PLK1 downregulation resulted in interference in cancer cell growth [85]. When translated into a mice xenograft model, the combination of onvansertib (PLK1 inhibitor) and paclitaxel resulted in a mitotic block and apoptosis induction with prolonged survival [84].
Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase PI3K pathway aberrations were described in serous EOC [86,87]. PI3K alterations occur with KRAS mutations, and in MOC cell lines with KRAS mutation PI3K and MEK (mitogen-activated protein kinase), inhibitors show synergistic activity [88]. Given these premises, encouraging results were reported in a phase I study that combined MEK and PI3K inhibition in patients with KRAS-mutated EOC [89].
MOC is also characterized by distinct methylation profiles. MOC showed that a dominant network module is the proteasome subunit beta (PSMB) family. In particular, combined functional module and methylation analysis identified PSMB8 as a candidate marker for MOC, suggesting a potential role of proteasome inhibitors such as carfilzomib [90].
Regarding the immunology of EOC, evidence indicates that these tumors express a multitude of known tumor-associated and mutational antigens. Furthermore, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have been described in several EOCs, correlating with improved survival outcomes [91,92,93]. However, despite a preclinical rationale, immunotherapy has yielded modest results in the treatment of EOC [94,95]. In this context, the immunological microenvironment of MOC has been poorly investigated; however, a recent study described the immune landscape for a large series of MOC. Most of the immune infiltrate is located in the stroma of the tumor compared to the epithelium, and advanced MOCs exhibit greater epithelial infiltration by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-negative macrophages and lower PD-L1-positive macrophages compared with stage I/II cancers (p-value = 0.004 and p-value = 0.014, respectively). The high epithelial density of FOXP3+ cells, CD8+/FOXP3+ cells, and PD-L1- macrophages is related to poor survival. The authors also concluded that almost all MOCs (about 90%) are immunogenically ‘cold’, suggesting, also for MOC, a limited role for immunotherapy [96]. Nevertheless, 15–20% of MOCs have defects in the mismatch-repair DNA pathways, leading to microsatellite instability and high mutation burdens [97,98,99]. MOCs with these features may benefit from immunotherapy.

4. Conclusions

MOC is a rare entity frequently diagnosed at an early stage. The pattern of growth (expansive vs. invasive) is the main prognostic factor but it is not incorporated in any classification system. Early-stage MOC can be treated with hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy alone. Nodal involvement is rare; thus pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy is not recommended. Appendectomy should be performed only in the case of gross involvement, bilateral MOC, or peritoneal involvement. Adjuvant chemotherapy does not appear to affect prognosis, although a recent study suggests its use in selected cases. The advanced stage of MOC requires adjuvant treatment but it is characterized by an intrinsic chemoresistance with a poor prognosis. To date, no better treatment options are available than the standard platinum-based chemotherapy. The ongoing improvement in molecular profiling of MOC will hopefully allow for the discovery of novel and targetable oncogenic drivers.
Further studies should be performed to comprehensively characterize this rare disease and improve its treatment and outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: F.B. and D.F.; Methodology: F.B. and D.F.; Resources: S.F., S.C., L.B., M.M. and A.C.; Literature research: S.F., S.C., L.B., M.M., A.C. and C.B.; Data curation: S.F., S.C., L.B., M.M., A.C. and C.B.; Interpretation of data: all authors; Writing—original draft preparation: F.B., D.F., A.C. and M.M.; Writing—review and editing: all authors; Supervision: I.R.-C., A.C. and D.F.; Project administration, I.R.-C., A.C. and D.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jelovac, D.; Armstrong, D.K. Recent progress in the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2011, 61, 183–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lheureux, S.; Braunstein, M.; Oza, A.M. Epithelial ovarian cancer: Evolution of management in the era of precision medicine. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2019, 69, 280–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kurman, R.J.; Shih, I.-M. The Dualistic Model of Ovarian Carcinogenesis. Am. J. Pathol. 2016, 186, 733–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Seidman, J.D.; Kurman, R.J.; Ronnett, B.M. Primary and Metastatic Mucinous Adenocarcinomas in the Ovaries: Incidence in Routine Practice with a New Approach to Improve Intraoperative Diagnosis. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2003, 27, 985–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schiavone, M.B.; Herzog, T.J.; Lewin, S.N.; Deutsch, I.; Sun, X.; Burke, W.M.; Wright, J.D. Natural history and outcome of mucinous carcinoma of the ovary. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011, 205, 480.e1–480.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yemelyanova, A.V.; Vang, R.; Judson, K.; Wu, L.-S.; Ronnett, B.M. Distinction of Primary and Metastatic Mucinous Tumors Involving the Ovary: Analysis of Size and Laterality Data by Primary Site with Reevaluation of an Algorithm for Tumor Classification. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2008, 32, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. McCluggage, W.G.; Rakha, E.A.; Morgan, D.; Macmillan, D. Immunohistochemistry in the distinction between primary and metastatic ovarian mucinous neoplasms. J. Clin. Pathol. 2012, 65, 596–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vang, R.; Gown, A.M.; Barry, T.S.; Wheeler, D.T.; Yemelyanova, A.; Seidman, J.D.; Ronnett, B.M. Cytokeratins 7 and 20 in Primary and Secondary Mucinous Tumors of the Ovary: Analysis of Coordinate Immunohistochemical Expression Profiles and Staining Distribution in 179 Cases. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2006, 30, 1130–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bassiouny, D.; Ismiil, N.; Dubé, V.; Han, G.; Cesari, M.; Lu, F.-I.; Slodkowska, E.; Parra-Herran, C.; Chiu, H.F.; Naeim, M.; et al. Comprehensive Clinicopathologic and Updated Immunohistochemical Characterization of Primary Ovarian Mucinous Carcinoma. Int. J. Surg. Pathol. 2018, 26, 306–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shimada, M.; Kigawa, J.; Ohishi, Y.; Yasuda, M.; Suzuki, M.; Hiura, M.; Nishimura, R.; Tabata, T.; Sugiyama, T.; Kaku, T. Clinicopathological characteristics of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the ovary. Gynecol. Oncol. 2009, 113, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ledermann, J.A.; Luvero, D.; Shafer, A.; O’Connor, D.; Mangili, G.; Friedlander, M.; Pfisterer, J.; Mirza, M.R.; Kim, J.-W.; Alexandre, J.; et al. Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Consensus Review for Mucinous Ovarian Carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2014, 24, S14–S19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cheasley, D.; Wakefield, M.J.; Ryland, G.L.; Allan, P.E.; Alsop, K.; Amarasinghe, K.C.; Ananda, S.; Anglesio, M.S.; Au-Yeung, G.; Böhm, M.; et al. The molecular origin and taxonomy of mucinous ovarian carcinoma. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Seidman, J.D.; Horkayne-Szakaly, I.; Haiba, M.; Boice, C.R.; Kurman, R.J.; Ronnett, B.M. The Histologic Type and Stage Distribution of Ovarian Carcinomas of Surface Epithelial Origin. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2004, 23, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hess, V.; A’Hern, R.; Nasiri, N.; King, D.M.; Blake, P.R.; Barton, D.P.; Shepherd, J.H.; Ind, T.; Bridges, J.; Harrington, K.; et al. Mucinous Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Separate Entity Requiring Specific Treatment. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004, 22, 1040–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Morice, P.; Gouy, S.; Leary, A. Mucinous Ovarian Carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 1256–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mackay, H.J.; Brady, M.F.; Oza, A.; Reuss, A.; Pujade-Lauraine, E.; Swart, A.M.; Siddiqui, N.; Colombo, N.; Bookman, M.A.; Pfisterer, J.; et al. Prognostic Relevance of Uncommon Ovarian Histology in Women with Stage III/IV Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2010, 20, 945–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Simons, M.; Massuger, L.; Bruls, J.; Bulten, J.; Teerenstra, S.; Nagtegaal, I. Relatively Poor Survival of Mucinous Ovarian Carcinoma in Advanced Stage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2017, 27, 651–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, K.R.; Scully, R.E. Mucinous Tumors of the Ovary: A Clinicopathologic Study of 196 Borderline Tumors (of Intestinal Type) and Carcinomas, Including an Evaluation of 11 Cases with Pseudomyxoma Peritonei’. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2000, 24, 1447–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Chen, S.; Leitao, M.M.; Tornos, C.; Soslow, R.A. Invasion patterns in stage I endometrioid and mucinous ovarian carcinomas: A clinicopathologic analysis emphasizing favorable outcomes in carcinomas without destructive stromal invasion and the occasional malignant course of carcinomas with limited destructive stromal invasion. Mod. Pathol. 2005, 18, 903–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tabrizi, A.D.; Kalloger, S.E.; Köbel, M.; Cipollone, J.; Roskelley, C.D.; Mehl, E.; Gilks, C.B. Primary Ovarian Mucinous Carcinoma of Intestinal Type: Significance of Pattern of Invasion and Immunohistochemical Expression Profile in a Series of 31 Cases. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2010, 29, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Muyldermans, K.; Moerman, P.; Amant, F.; Leunen, K.; Neven, P.; Vergote, I. Primary invasive mucinous ovarian carcinoma of the intestinal type: Importance of the expansile versus infiltrative type in predicting recurrence and lymph node metastases. Eur. J. Cancer 2013, 49, 1600–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gouy, S.; Saidani, M.; Maulard, A.; Bach-Hamba, S.; Bentivegna, E.; Leary, A.; Pautier, P.; Devouassoux-Shisheboran, M.; Genestie, C.; Morice, P. Results of Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Expansile and Infiltrative Mucinous Ovarian Cancers. Oncologist 2017, 23, 324–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kajiyama, H.; Suzuki, S.; Yoshikawa, N.; Kawai, M.; Nagasaka, T.; Kikkawa, F. Survival impact of capsule status in stage I ovarian mucinous carcinoma—A mulicentric retrospective study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2019, 234, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kurman, R.J.; Carcangiu, M.L.; Herrington, C.S. World Health Organisation Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs; World Health Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
  27. McCluggage, W.G.; Judge, M.J.; Clarke, B.A.; Davidson, B.; Gilks, C.B.; Hollema, H.; Ledermann, J.A.; Matias-Guiu, X.; Mikami, Y.; Stewart, C.J.; et al. Data set for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: Recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Mod. Pathol. 2015, 28, 1101–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ishioka, S.-I.; Sagae, S.; Terasawa, K.; Sugimura, M.; Nishioka, Y.; Tsukada, K.; Kudo, R. Comparison of the usefulness between a new universal grading system for epithelial ovarian cancer and the FIGO grading system. Gynecol. Oncol. 2003, 89, 447–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gilks, C.B.; Ionescu, D.N.; Kalloger, S.E.; Köbel, M.; Irving, J.; Clarke, B.; Santos, J.; Le, N.; Moravan, V.; Swenerton, K. Tumor cell type can be reproducibly diagnosed and is of independent prognostic significance in patients with maximally debulked ovarian carcinoma. Hum. Pathol. 2008, 39, 1239–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Busca, A.; Nofech-Mozes, S.; Olkhov-Mitsel, E.; Gien, L.T.; Bassiouny, D.; Mirkovic, J.; Djordjevic, B.; Parra-Herran, C. Histological grading of ovarian mucinous carcinoma—An outcome-based analysis of traditional and novel systems. Histopathology 2020, 77, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rodríguez, I.M.; Prat, J. Mucinous Tumors of the Ovary: A Clinicopathologic Analysis of 75 Borderline Tumors (of Intestinal Type) and Carcinomas. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2002, 26, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shappell, H.W.; Riopel, M.A.; Sehdev, A.E.S.; Ronnett, B.M.; Kurman, R.J. Diagnostic Criteria and Behavior of Ovarian Seromucinous (Endocervical-Type Mucinous and Mixed Cell-Type) Tumors: Atypical Proliferative (Borderline) Tumors, Intraepithelial, Microinvasive, and Invasive Carcinomas. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2002, 26, 1529–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Lee, J.-Y.; Jo, Y.R.; Kim, T.H.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, M.A.; Kim, J.W.; Park, N.H.; Song, Y.-S. Safety of Fertility-Sparing Surgery in Primary Mucinous Carcinoma of the Ovary. Cancer Res. Treat. 2015, 47, 290–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ludwick, C.; Gilks, C.B.; Miller, D.; Yaziji, H.; Clement, P.B. Aggressive Behavior of Stage I Ovarian Mucinous Tumors Lacking Extensive Infiltrative Invasion: A Report of Four Cases and Review of the Literature. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2005, 24, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Alexandre, J.; Ray-Coquard, I.; Selle, F.; Floquet, A.; Cottu, P.; Weber, B.; Falandry, C.; Lebrun, D.; Pujade-Lauraine, E. Mucinous advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma: Clinical presentation and sensitivity to platinum–paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, the GINECO experience. Ann. Oncol. 2010, 21, 2377–2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Naik, J.D.; Seligmann, J.; Perren, T. Mucinous tumours of the ovary. J. Clin. Pathol. 2012, 65, 580–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Craig, O.; Salazar, C.; Gorringe, K.L. Options for the Treatment of Mucinous Ovarian Carcinoma. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2021, 22, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vergote, I.; De Brabanter, J.; Fyles, A.; Bertelsen, K.; Einhorn, N.; Sevelda, P.; Gore, M.E.; Kærn, J.; Verrelst, H.; Sjövall, K.; et al. Prognostic importance of degree of differentiation and cyst rupture in stage I invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Lancet 2001, 357, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kim, H.S.; Ahn, J.H.; Chung, H.H.; Kim, J.W.; Park, N.H.; Song, Y.S.; Lee, H.P.; Kim, Y.B. Impact of intraoperative rupture of the ovarian capsule on prognosis in patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 39, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Matsuo, K.; Machida, H.; Mariani, A.; Mandelbaum, R.S.; Glaser, G.E.; Gostout, B.S.; Roman, L.D.; Wright, J.D. Adequate pelvic lymphadenectomy and survival of women with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018, 29, e69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yoshihara, M.; Kajiyama, H.; Tamauchi, S.; Iyoshi, S.; Yokoi, A.; Suzuki, S.; Kawai, M.; Nagasaka, T.; Takahashi, K.; Matsui, S.; et al. Prognostic impact of pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy on clinically-apparent stage I primary mucinous epithelial ovarian carcinoma: A multi-institutional study with propensity score-weighted analysis. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 50, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cho, Y.-H.; Kim, D.-Y.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, Y.-M.; Kim, K.-R.; Kim, Y.-T.; Nam, J.-H. Is complete surgical staging necessary in patients with stage I mucinous epithelial ovarian tumors? Gynecol. Oncol. 2006, 103, 878–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Schmeler, K.M.; Tao, X.; Frumovitz, M.; Deavers, M.T.; Sun, C.C.; Sood, A.K.; Brown, J.; Gershenson, D.M.; Ramirez, P.T. Prevalence of Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Mucinous Carcinoma of the Ovary. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010, 116, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Salgado-Ceballos, I.; Ríos, J.; Pérez-Montiel, D.; Gallardo, L.; Barquet-Muñoz, S.; Salcedo-Hernández, R.; Pérez-Plasencia, C.; Herrera, L.A.; de León, D.F.C. Is lymphadenectomy necessary in mucinous ovarian cancer? A single institution experience. Int. J. Surg. 2017, 41, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hoogendam, J.; Vlek, C.; Witteveen, P.; Verheijen, R.; Zweemer, R. Surgical lymph node assessment in mucinous ovarian carcinoma staging: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2017, 124, 370–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gouy, S.; Saidani, M.; Maulard, A.; Faron, M.; Bach-Hamba, S.; Bentivegna, E.; Leary, A.; Pautier, P.; Devouassoux-Shisheboran, M.; Genestie, C.; et al. Staging surgery in early-stage ovarian mucinous tumors according to expansile and infiltrative types. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep. 2017, 22, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Heyward, Q.D.; Nasioudis, D.; Cory, L.; Haggerty, A.F.; Ko, E.M.; Latif, N. Lymphadenectomy for early-stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2021, 31, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cheng, A.; Li, M.; Kanis, M.J.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Cui, B.; Jiang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, X.; Kong, B. Is it necessary to perform routine appendectomy for mucinous ovarian neoplasms? A retrospective study and meta-analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017, 144, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Albloshi, A.; Fadare, O. Revisiting the necessity for routine appendectomies in mucinous neoplasms of the ovary: An evaluation of 460 mucinous ovarian tumors. Ann. Diagn. Pathol. 2022, 59, 151950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Peres, L.C.; Cushing-Haugen, K.L.; Köbel, M.; Harris, H.R.; Berchuck, A.; Rossing, M.A.; Schildkraut, J.M.; Doherty, J.A. Invasive Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Survival by Histotype and Disease Stage. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2019, 111, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bentivegna, E.; Fruscio, R.; Roussin, S.; Ceppi, L.; Satoh, T.; Kajiyama, H.; Uzan, C.; Colombo, N.; Gouy, S.; Morice, P. Long-term follow-up of patients with an isolated ovarian recurrence after conservative treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer: Review of the results of an international multicenter study comprising 545 patients. Fertil. Steril. 2015, 104, 1319–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Mueller, J.J.; Lajer, H.; Mosgaard, B.J.; Hamba, S.B.; Morice, P.; Gouy, S.; Hussein, Y.; Soslow, R.A.; Schlappe, B.A.; Zhou, Q.C.; et al. International Study of Primary Mucinous Ovarian Carcinomas Managed at Tertiary Medical Centers. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2018, 28, 915–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Nasioudis, D.; Haggerty, A.F.; Giuntoli, R.L.; Burger, R.A.; Morgan, M.A.; Ko, E.M.; Latif, N.A. Adjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with a survival benefit for patients with early stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019, 154, 302–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Matsuo, K.; Huang, Y.; Zivanovic, O.; Shimada, M.; Machida, H.; Grubbs, B.H.; Roman, L.D.; Wright, J.D. Effectiveness of postoperative chemotherapy for stage IC mucinous ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019, 154, 505–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ikeda, Y.; Yoshihara, M.; Yoshikawa, N.; Yokoi, A.; Tamauchi, S.; Nishino, K.; Niimi, K.; Kajiyama, H. Is adjuvant chemotherapy necessary for young women with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer who have undergone fertility-sparing surgery?: A multicenter retrospective analysis. BMC Women’s Health 2022, 22, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Long, X.; Li, R.; Tang, Y.; Yang, L.; Zou, D. The effect of chemotherapy in patients with stage I mucinous ovarian cancer undergoing fertility-sparing surgery. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 1028842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Richardson, M.T.; Mysona, D.P.; Klein, D.A.; Mann, A.; Liao, C.-I.; Diver, E.J.; Darcy, K.M.; Tian, C.; She, J.-X.; Ghamande, S.; et al. Long term survival outcomes of stage I mucinous ovarian cancer—A clinical calculator predictive of chemotherapy benefit. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020, 159, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Engqvist, H.; Parris, T.Z.; Kovács, A.; Nemes, S.; Rönnerman, E.W.; De Lara, S.; Biermann, J.; Sundfeldt, K.; Karlsson, P.; Helou, K. Immunohistochemical validation of COL3A1, GPR158 and PITHD1 as prognostic biomarkers in early-stage ovarian carcinomas. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Engqvist, H.; Parris, T.Z.; Kovács, A.; Rönnerman, E.W.; Sundfeldt, K.; Karlsson, P.; Helou, K. Validation of Novel Prognostic Biomarkers for Early-Stage Clear-Cell, Endometrioid and Mucinous Ovarian Carcinomas Using Immunohistochemistry. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Calura, E.; Fruscio, R.; Paracchini, L.; Bignotti, E.; Ravaggi, A.; Martini, P.; Sales, G.; Beltrame, L.; Clivio, L.; Ceppi, L.; et al. miRNA Landscape in Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Defines the Histotype Specificities. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013, 19, 4114–4123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Stehling, O.; Vashisht, A.A.; Mascarenhas, J.; Jonsson, Z.O.; Sharma, T.; Netz, D.J.A.; Pierik, A.J.; Wohlschlegel, J.A.; Lill, R. MMS19 Assembles Iron-Sulfur Proteins Required for DNA Metabolism and Genomic Integrity. Science 2012, 337, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Zhang, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Yarbrough, W.G. ARF Promotes MDM2 Degradation and Stabilizes p53: ARF-INK4a Locus Deletion Impairs Both the Rb and p53 Tumor Suppression Pathways. Cell 1998, 92, 725–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kim, J.H.; Yoon, S.Y.; Kim, C.-N.; Joo, J.H.; Moon, S.K.; Choe, I.S.; Choe, Y.-K.; Kim, J.W. The Bmi-1 oncoprotein is overexpressed in human colorectal cancer and correlates with the reduced p16INK4a/p14ARF proteins. Cancer Lett. 2004, 203, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Calura, E.; Paracchini, L.; Fruscio, R.; DiFeo, A.; Ravaggi, A.; Peronne, J.; Martini, P.; Sales, G.; Beltrame, L.; Bignotti, E.; et al. A prognostic regulatory pathway in stage I epithelial ovarian cancer: New hints for the poor prognosis assessment. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 1511–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Calura, E.; Ciciani, M.; Sambugaro, A.; Paracchini, L.; Benvenuto, G.; Milite, S.; Martini, P.; Beltrame, L.; Zane, F.; Fruscio, R.; et al. Transcriptional Characterization of Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Multicentric Study. Cells 2019, 8, 1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Velle, A.; Pesenti, C.; Grassi, T.; Beltrame, L.; Martini, P.; Jaconi, M.; Agostinis, F.; Calura, E.; Katsaros, D.; Borella, F.; et al. A comprehensive investigation of histotype-specific microRNA and their variants in stage I epithelial ovarian cancers. Int. J. Cancer 2022, ijc.34408, early view. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pesenti, C.; Beltrame, L.; Velle, A.; Fruscio, R.; Jaconi, M.; Borella, F.; Cribiù, F.M.; Calura, E.; Venturini, L.V.; Lenoci, D.; et al. Copy number alterations in stage I epithelial ovarian cancer highlight three genomic patterns associated with prognosis. Eur. J. Cancer 2022, 171, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Brown, J.; Frumovitz, M. Mucinous Tumors of the Ovary: Current Thoughts on Diagnosis and Management. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2014, 16, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Hollis, R.L.; Stillie, L.J.; Hopkins, S.; Bartos, C.; Churchman, M.; Rye, T.; Nussey, F.; Fegan, S.; Nirsimloo, R.; Inman, G.J.; et al. Clinicopathological Determinants of Recurrence Risk and Survival in Mucinous Ovarian Carcinoma. Cancers 2021, 13, 5839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lee, S.W.; Sung, J.-A.; Jung, M.; Kim, H.; Lee, C. Prognosis in primary mucinous ovarian carcinoma: Focusing on the five pathological findings indicating metastatic mucinous carcinoma to the ovary. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2022, 33, e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Qi, X.; Xu, L.; Wang, J.; Yu, J.; Wang, Y. Nomograms for primary mucinous ovarian cancer: A SEER population-based study. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2022, 51, 102424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Du Bois, A.; Reuss, A.; Pujade-Lauraine, E.; Harter, P.; Ray-Coquard, I.; Pfisterer, J. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: By the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l’Ovaire (GINECO. Cancer 2009, 115, 1234–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Karabuk, E.; Kose, M.F.; Hizli, D.; Taşkin, S.; Karadağ, B.; Turan, T.; Boran, N.; Ozfuttu, A.; Ortaç, U.F. Comparison of advanced stage mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer and serous epithelial ovarian cancer with regard to chemosensitivity and survival outcome: A matched case-control study. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013, 24, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Zhang, G.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, C.; Chao, G.; Cui, R.; Zhang, Z. The prognosis impact of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) plus cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in advanced ovarian cancer: The meta-analysis. J. Ovarian Res. 2019, 12, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Iavazzo, C.; Spiliotis, J. Is there a promising role of HIPEC in patients with advanced mucinous ovarian cancer? Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2021, 303, 597–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Van Driel, W.J.; Koole, S.N.; Sikorska, K.; Schagen van Leeuwen, J.H.; Schreuder, H.W.R.; Hermans, R.H.M.; De Hingh, I.H.; Van Der Velden, J.; Arts, H.J.; Massuger, L.F.; et al. Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. The PSOGI Working Group; The BIG-RENAPE Working Group; Mercier, F.; Bakrin, N.; Bartlett, D.L.; Goere, D.; Quenet, F.; Dumont, F.; Heyd, B.; Abboud, K.; et al. Peritoneal Carcinomatosis of Rare Ovarian Origin Treated by Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Multi-Institutional Cohort from PSOGI and BIG-RENAPE. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 25, 1668–1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gore, M.; Hackshaw, A.; Brady, W.E.; Penson, R.T.; Zaino, R.; McCluggage, W.G.; Ganesan, R.; Wilkinson, N.; Perren, T.; Montes, A.; et al. An international, phase III randomized trial in patients with mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (mEOC/GOG 0241) with long-term follow-up: And experience of conducting a clinical trial in a rare gynecological tumor. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019, 153, 541–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Li, X.; Sun, J.; He, X. Expression of c-myc and mutation of the KRAS gene in patients with ovarian mucinous tumors. Genet. Mol. Res. 2015, 14, 10752–10759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mackenzie, R.; Kommoss, S.; Winterhoff, B.J.; Kipp, B.R.; Garcia, J.J.; Voss, J.; Halling, K.; Karnezis, A.; Senz, J.; Yang, W.; et al. Targeted deep sequencing of mucinous ovarian tumors reveals multiple overlapping RAS-pathway activating mutations in borderline and cancerous neoplasms. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lin, W.-L.; Kuo, W.-H.; Chen, F.-L.; Lee, M.-Y.; Ruan, A.; Tyan, Y.-S.; Hsu, J.-D.; Chiang, H.; Han, C.-P. Identification of the Coexisting HER2 Gene Amplification and Novel Mutations in the HER2 Protein-Overexpressed Mucinous Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2011, 18, 2388–2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rechsteiner, M.; Zimmermann, A.-K.; Wild, P.J.; Caduff, R.; von Teichman, A.; Fink, D.; Moch, H.; Noske, A. TP53 mutations are common in all subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer and occur concomitantly with KRAS mutations in the mucinous type. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 2013, 95, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Meagher, N.S.; Gorringe, K.L.; Wakefield, M.J.; Bolithon, A.; Pang, C.N.I.; Chiu, D.S.; Anglesio, M.S.; Mallitt, K.-A.; Doherty, J.A.; Harris, H.R.; et al. Gene-Expression Profiling of Mucinous Ovarian Tumors and Comparison with Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Tumors Identifies Markers Associated with Adverse Outcomes. Clin. Cancer Res. 2022, 28, 5383–5395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Richardson, M.T.; Recouvreux, M.S.; Karlan, B.Y.; Walts, A.E.; Orsulic, S. Ciliated Cells in Ovarian Cancer Decrease with Increasing Tumor Grade and Disease Progression. Cells 2022, 11, 4009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Affatato, R.; Carrassa, L.; Chilà, R.; Lupi, M.; Restelli, V.; Damia, G. Identification of PLK1 as a New Therapeutic Target in Mucinous Ovarian Carcinoma. Cancers 2020, 12, 672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 2011, 474, 609–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. D’Ambrosio, C.; Erriquez, J.; Arigoni, M.; Capellero, S.; Mittica, G.; Ghisoni, E.; Borella, F.; Katsaros, D.; Privitera, S.; Ribotta, M.; et al. PIK3R1W624R Is an Actionable Mutation in High Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma. Cells 2020, 9, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Inaba, K.; Oda, K.; Aoki, K.; Sone, K.; Ikeda, Y.; Miyasaka, A.; Kashiyama, T.; Fukuda, T.; Makii, C.; Arimoto, T.; et al. Synergistic antitumor effects of combination PI3K/mTOR and MEK inhibition (SAR245409 and pimasertib) in mucinous ovarian carcinoma cells by fluorescence resonance energy transfer imaging. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 29577–29591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Spreafico, A.; Oza, A.M.; Clarke, B.A.; Mackay, H.J.; Shaw, P.; Butler, M.; Dhani, N.C.; Lheureux, S.; Wilson, M.K.; Welch, S.; et al. Genotype-matched treatment for patients with advanced type I epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Gynecol. Oncol. 2017, 144, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Liew, P.-L.; Huang, R.-L.; Weng, Y.-C.; Fang, C.-L.; Huang, T.H.-M.; Lai, H.-C. Distinct methylation profile of mucinous ovarian carcinoma reveals susceptibility to proteasome inhibitors: Methylation Profile of MuOC and PSMB8. Int. J. Cancer 2018, 143, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sato, E.; Olson, S.H.; Ahn, J.; Bundy, B.; Nishikawa, H.; Qian, F.; Jungbluth, A.A.; Frosina, D.; Gnjatic, S.; Ambrosone, C.; et al. Intraepithelial CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and a high CD8+/regulatory T cell ratio are associated with favorable prognosis in ovarian cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 18538–18543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Zhang, L.; Conejo-Garcia, J.R.; Katsaros, D.; Gimotty, P.A.; Massobrio, M.; Regnani, G.; Makrigiannakis, A.; Gray, H.; Schlienger, K.; Liebman, M.N.; et al. Intratumoral T Cells, Recurrence, and Survival in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hwang, W.-T.; Adams, S.F.; Tahirovic, E.; Hagemann, I.S.; Coukos, G. Prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating T cells in ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012, 124, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Borella, F.; Ghisoni, E.; Giannone, G.; Cosma, S.; Benedetto, C.; Valabrega, G.; Katsaros, D. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Overview on Efficacy and Future Perspectives. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Martín, A.G.; Sánchez-Lorenzo, L. Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors in patients with ovarian cancer: Still promising? Cancer 2019, 125 (Suppl. S24), 4616–4622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Meagher, N.S.; Hamilton, P.; Milne, K.; Thornton, S.; Harris, B.; Weir, A.; Alsop, J.; Bisinoto, C.; Brenton, J.D.; Brooks-Wilson, A.; et al. Profiling the immune landscape in mucinous ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 2022, 168, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Pal, T.; Permuth-Wey, J.; Kumar, A.; Sellers, T.A. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Ovarian Cancers: Estimation of Microsatellite-High Frequency and Characterization of Mismatch Repair Deficient Tumor Histology. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008, 14, 6847–6854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Murphy, M.A.; Wentzensen, N. Frequency of mismatch repair deficiency in ovarian cancer: A systematic review This article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the public domain of the United States of America. Int. J. Cancer 2011, 129, 1914–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Segev, Y.; Pal, T.; Rosen, B.; McLaughlin, J.R.; Sellers, T.A.; Risch, H.A.; Zhang, S.; Sun, P.; Narod, S.A.; Schildkraut, J. Risk Factors for Ovarian Cancers with and without Microsatellite Instability. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2014, 24, 664–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Cancers 15 01172 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of the clinical management of the early-stage MOC according to the most recent evidence (CHT: chemotherapy; HBSO: hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo—oophorectomy; MOC: mucinous ovarian cancer: SO: salpingo—oophorectomy).
Figure 1. Flowchart of the clinical management of the early-stage MOC according to the most recent evidence (CHT: chemotherapy; HBSO: hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo—oophorectomy; MOC: mucinous ovarian cancer: SO: salpingo—oophorectomy).
Cancers 15 01172 g001
Cancers 15 01172 g002 550
Figure 2. Flowchart of the clinical management of advanced MOC according to the most recent evidence (CHT: chemotherapy; HIPEC: hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; MOC: mucinous ovarian cancer).
Figure 2. Flowchart of the clinical management of advanced MOC according to the most recent evidence (CHT: chemotherapy; HIPEC: hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; MOC: mucinous ovarian cancer).
Cancers 15 01172 g002
Table
Table 1. Summary of the main published data on histological features in early stage of primary MOC.
Table 1. Summary of the main published data on histological features in early stage of primary MOC.
StudyGrowth PatternNumber of Early MOC PatientsFIGO Staging, NumberTumor Grading,
Number		Rupture CapsuleRecurrence
Rate		FU
(Months)
Lee and Scully 2000 [20]ESI
 
ISI		12
 
6		Ia
 
Ia		G1: 8,
G2: 4
NA		IO:
3/25 *		0/12
 
1/6(16.7%)		33–135
 
36–135
Chen et al. [21]ISI4/6Ia, 2
Ic, 2		G1:1
G2: 3		PO:1
IO: 1		1/2
1/2		9–161
Tabrizi et al. [22]ESI
 
ISI		26
 
4		NA
 
NA		NA
 
G3: 4		PO: 5
IO: 12		6/26
 
1/4		6–176
Muyldermans et al. [23]ESI
 
 
ISI		21
 
 
12		Ia, 11
Ic, 10
 
Ia, 9
Ic, 3		 
G1: 20
G2: 20
G3: 4
 		NA
 
 
NA		0
 
 
1/9
1/3		64
Gouy S et al. [24]ESI
 
 
 
 
ISI		29
 
 
 
 
39		Ia, 13
Ic1, 9
Ic2, 5
Ic3, 2
 
Ia, 22
Ic1, 9
Ic2, 7
Ic3, 1		G1: 11
G2: 10
G3: 0
Gx: 8
 
NA		PO:6
IO: 8
 
 
 
PO:6
IO: 6 		3/29
 
 
 
 
6/39		NA
Kajiyama et al. [25]NA194Ia, 85
Ib, 2
Ic1, 58
Ic2, 18
Ic3, 31		NAIO: 58
PO: 49		36/1942–248
Rodriguez and Prat [31]ESI
 
 
ISI		15
 
 
11		Ia, 10
Ic, 5
 
Ia, 8
Ic, 3		G1:4,
G2:11
 
G3: 11		PO: 4/15
IO: 1/15
 
PO: 1/11
IO: 2/11		0/15
 
 
0/8
3/3(100)		40–194
 
 
12–180
Ludwick et al. [34]ESI3Ia:3NANA3/37–32
DOT: dead of tumor, FU: follow-up, ESI: expansile stromal invasion, Gx: undetermined grade IO: intraoperative, ISI: invasive stromal invasion, NED: no evidence of disease, NA: not available, OS: overall survival, PO: perioperative. * Subtype of infiltration in these patients is unknown.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Borella, F.; Mitidieri, M.; Cosma, S.; Benedetto, C.; Bertero, L.; Fucina, S.; Ray-Coquard, I.; Carapezzi, A.; Ferraioli, D. Update on Prognostic and Predictive Markers in Mucinous Ovarian Cancer. Cancers 2023, 15, 1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041172

AMA Style

Borella F, Mitidieri M, Cosma S, Benedetto C, Bertero L, Fucina S, Ray-Coquard I, Carapezzi A, Ferraioli D. Update on Prognostic and Predictive Markers in Mucinous Ovarian Cancer. Cancers. 2023; 15(4):1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041172

Chicago/Turabian Style

Borella, Fulvio, Marco Mitidieri, Stefano Cosma, Chiara Benedetto, Luca Bertero, Stefano Fucina, Isabelle Ray-Coquard, Annalisa Carapezzi, and Domenico Ferraioli. 2023. "Update on Prognostic and Predictive Markers in Mucinous Ovarian Cancer" Cancers 15, no. 4: 1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041172

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop