Validation of a two-tier grading system in an unselected, consecutive cohort of serous ovarian cancer patients.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: New insights into the carcinogenesis of ovarian cancer (OC) lead to the definition of low-grade and high-grade serous OC. In this study, we validated the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) two-tier grading system and compared it with the traditional three-tier grading system as suggested by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO). METHODS: Consecutive patients with serous OC were enrolled. These two grading systems were assessed independently from each other. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox-regression analyses were performed to validate and compare their prognostic impact. RESULTS: 143 consecutive patients entered the study. According to the Kaplan-Meier estimates, the MDACC grading system (p = 0.001) predicted the progression free survival (PFS) more precisely than the FIGO system (p = 0.025). The MDACC grading system (p = 0.008) but not the FIGO system (p = 0.329) showed a statistically significant difference in terms of disease specific survival (DSS). Multivariable Cox-regression analyses revealed an independent prognostic impact of the MDACC grading system but not of the FIGO system for PFS (HR 1.570; 95 % CI 1.007-2.449; p = 0.047, and HR 0.712; 95 % CI 0.476-1.066; p = 0.099, respectively). Concerning DSS, the two-tier grading system but not the FIGO system showed a prognostic impact in a univariable Cox-regression analysis (HR 2.152; 95 % CI 1.207-3.835; p = 0.009, and HR 1.258; 95 % CI 0.801-1.975; p = 0.319, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We were able to validate the MDACC grading system in serous OC. Moreover, this grading system was stronger associated with survival than the FIGO system.