Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2007; 67(5): 475-479
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-965245
Originalarbeit

Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Prognostic Significance of Ploidy and DNA Index in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma

Prognostische Relevanz der DNS-Ploidie und -Indizes bei Ovarialkarzinom-PatientinnenP. Projić1 , I. Šamija1 , J. Bezić1 , S. Tomić1 , Š. Anđelinović1
  • 1Institute of Pathology, Cytology and Forensic Medicine, Clinical Hospital Split
Further Information

Publication History

received 11.4.2006 revised 10.8.2006

accepted 10.8.2006

Publication Date:
13 June 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective: To explore the significance of DNA ploidy and DNA index cutt off value to overall survival, and their potential value as independent prognostic factors. Material and Methods: Paraffin-embedded tissue from sixty-one ovarian epithelial cancers were analyzed by histology and flow cytometry. The results of DNA analysis were correlated with clinicopathologic data. For univariate survival analysis we used the Kaplan-Meier model and log-rank test to assess the differences between the groups. For multivariate analysis, Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to examine several parameters simultaneously. Results: Aneuploidy was significantly associated with advanced clinical stage, menopausal status, high grade, serous histological type and vascular invasion. Univariate analysis showed that aneuploidy (p = 0.001) and DNA index > 1.4 (p = 0.007) were associated with shorter overall survival. Multivariate analysis showed only vascular invasion as an independent prognostic factor (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Although abnormal DNA content was associated with traditional clinicopathological characteristics for aggressive tumors and shorter overall survival, aneuploidy and high DNA index had no independent prognostic value in our study.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung: Feststellung der Signifikanz der DNS-Ploidie und der DNS-Indizes für das Überleben von Ovarialkarzinom-Patientinnen und der potenziellen Bedeutung dieser Indizes als unabhängige prognostische Faktoren. Material und Methoden: Paraffiniertes Gewebe von 61 Ovarialkarzinomen wurde histologisch und mittels Durchflusszytometrie analysiert. Die Ergebnisse der DNS-Analysen wurden mit den klinisch-pathologischen Daten verglichen. Die Kaplan-Meier-Methode und der Log-Rank-Test wurden zur Bewertung der Überlebensanalyse und der Unterschiede zwischen den einzelnen Gruppen angewendet. Zur Multivarianzanalyse verwendeten wir das Cox'sche proportionale Zufalls-Regressionsmodell, um mehrere Parameter gleichzeitig messen zu können. Ergebnisse: Eine Aneuploidie bestand signifikant bei fortgeschrittenem klinischem Status, Menopause, bei hochgradiger Serohistologie und bei vaskulärer Tumorinvasion. Die Univarianzanalyse ergab, dass bei Aneuploidie (p = 0,001) und einem DNS-Index ≥1,4 (p = 0,007) die allgemeine Überlebensrate kürzer war. Die Multivarianzanalyse ergab lediglich die vaskuläre Tumorinvasion als unabhängigen Prognosefaktor (p < 0,001). Schlussfolgerung: Obwohl sich ein anormaler DNS-Gehalt als klinopathologisch charakteristisch für das Vorhandensein aggressiver Tumoren und eine kürzere Überlebenszeit erwies, ergaben sowohl Aneuploidie als auch ein hoher DNS-Index keinen unabhängigen prognostischen Wert im Rahmen unserer Untersuchung.

Key words

DNA Index - flow cytometry - ovarian cancer - ploidy

Schlüsselwörter

DNA‐Index - Flow‐Zytometrie - Ovarialkarzinom - Ploidie

References

  • 1 Baak J P, Chan K K, Stolk J G, Kenemans P. Prognostic factors in borderline and invasive ovarian tumors of the common epithelial type.  Pathol Res Pract. 1987;  182 755-774
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bell D A. Ovarian surface epithelial-stromal tumors.  Hum Pathol. 1991;  22 750-762
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Benedet J L, Bender H, Jones I IIH, Ngan H YS, Pecorelli S. FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers.  Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  70 209-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bernabei V M, Miller D S, Bauer K D, Murad T M, Rademaker A W, Lurain J R. Flow cytometric evaluation of epithelial ovarian cancer.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;  162 1584-1590
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Brescia R J, Barakat R A, Beller U, Frederickson G, Suhrland M J, Dubin N, Demopoulos R I. The prognostic significance of nuclear DNA content in malignant epithelial tumors of the ovary.  Cancer. 1990;  65 141-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cox D R. Statistics.  J R Statist Soc. 1972;  B34 187-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Curling M, Stenning S, Hudson C N, Watson J V. Multivariate analyses of DNA index, p62c-myc, and clinicopathological status of patients with ovarian cancer.  J Clin Pathol. 1998;  51 455-461
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Erba E, Ubezio P, Pep S, Vaghi M, Marsoni S, Torri W, Mangioni C, Landoni F, Dincalci M. Flow cytometric analysis of DNA content in human ovarian cancers.  Br J Cancer. 1989;  60 45-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Geisler J P, Geisler H E. Tumor markers and molecular biological markers in gynecologic malignancies.  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  13 31-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hedley D W, Friedlander M L, Taylor I W, Rugg C A, Musgrove E A. Method for analysis of cellular DNA-content of paraffin-embedded pathological material using flow cytometry.  J Histochem Cytochem. 1983;  31 1333-1335
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hiddemann W, Schuman J, Andreef M, Barlogie B, Herman C J, Leif R C, Mayall B H, Murphy R F, Sandberg A A. Conventione on nomenclature for DNA cytometry. Committee on nomenclature, society for analytical cytology.  Cancer genet cytogenet. 1984;  13 181-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Holschneider C H, Berek J S. Ovarian cancer: epidemiology, biology, and prognostic factors.  Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;  19 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kaern J, Trope C G, Kristensen G B, Pettersem E O. Flow cytometric DNA ploidy and S-phase heterogeneity in advanced ovarian carcinoma.  Cancer. 1994;  73 1870-1877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kaplan E L, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations.  J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;  53 457-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kimmig R, Wimberger P, Hillemanns P, Kapsner T, Caspari C, Hepp H. Multivariate analysis of the prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S-phase fraction in ovarian cancer determined by flow cytometry following detection of cytokeratin-labeled tumor cells.  Gynecol Oncol. 2002;  84 21-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Klemi P J, Joensuu H, Maenpaa J, Kiilholma P. Influence of cellular DNA content on survival in ovarian carcinoma.  Obstet Gynecol. 1989;  170 200-204
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Khoo S K, Hurst T, Kearsley G D, Dickie G, Free K, Parsons P G, Whitaker S, Ward B. Prognostic significance of tumor ploidy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.  Gynecol Oncol. 1990;  39 284-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lai C H, Hsueh S, Tsao K C, Chen S M. DNA aneuploidy in benign tumors and normal tissues of the female genital tract.  Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1996;  15 63-68
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Resnik E, Trujillo Y P, Taxy J B. Long-term survival and DNA ploidy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.  J Surg Oncol. 1997;  64 299-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schueler J A, Trimbos J B, Burg M VD, Cornelisse C J, Hermans J, Fleuren G J. DNA index reflects the biological behavior of ovarian carcinoma stage I-IIa.  Gynecol Oncol. 1996;  62 59-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Seidman I D, Norris H J, Griffin Jl, Hitchcock C L. DNA flow cytometric analysis of serous ovarian tumors of low malignant potential.  Cancer. 1993;  71 3947-3951
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Shackney S E, Shankey T V. Common patterns of genetic evolution in human solid tumors.  Cytometry. 1997;  29 1-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shankey T V, Rabinovitch P S, Bagwell B, Bauer K D, Duque R E, Hedley D W, Mayall B H, Wheeless L, Cox C. Guidelines for implementation of clinical DNA cytometry. International society for analytical cytology.  Cytometry. 1993;  14 472-477
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Silverberg S G. Histopathologic grading of ovarian carcinoma: a review and proposal.  Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2000;  19 7-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tomić S, Ilić Forko J, Babić D, Šundov D, Kuret S, Anđelinović Š. C-erb-2, p53, and nm23 proteins as prognostic factors in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma.  Croat Med J. 2003;  44 429-434
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Van Dam J. Ploidy in ovarian cancer and prognosis. Leake R, Gore M, Ward RH The biology of gynaecological cancer. London; RCOG Press 1995: 258-273
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Valverde J J, Martin M, Garcia-Asenjo J A, Casado A, Vidart J A, Diaz-Rubio E. Prognostic value of DNA quantification in early epithelial ovarian carcinoma.  Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  97 409-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 WHO histological classification of tumors of the ovary. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P Pathology and genetics of tumors of the breast and femal genital organs. Lyon; IARC press 2003: 114-115
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Zanetta G, Keeney G L, Cha S S, Wieand H S, Katzmann J A, Podratz K C. DNA index by flow cytometric analysis: an additional prognostic factor in advanced ovarian carcinoma without residual disease after primary operation.  Gynecol Oncol. 1996;  62 208-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

M. D. Joško Bezić

Institute of Pathology, Cytology and Forensic Medicine
Clinical Hospital Split

Spinčićeva 1

21000 Split

Croatia

Email: jb@mefst.hr

      >