Desfechos reprodutivos e de sobrevida em adolescente tratada com cirurgia preservadora de fertilidade por tumor borderline de ovário em estádio avançado: relato de caso e revisão da literatura / Reproductive and survival outcomes in an adolescent treated with fertility- sparing surgery for advanced stage borderline ovarian tumor: case report and review of the literature

Existem poucos dados na literatura sobre os resultados obstétricos e oncológicos de adolescentes com tumores borderline de ovário em estádio avançado trata- das com cirurgia preservadora da fertilidade. Uma adolescente de 15 anos com diagnóstico de tumor borderline de ovário estádio IIIc foi inicialmente tratada com tumorectomia ovariana bilateral e quimioterapia adjuvante com esquema de platina/taxano (seis ciclos). Durante o seguimento, foi submetida a outras três tumorectomias devido a tumor borderline de ovário (duas vezes) e cistadenoma ovariano (uma vez). Outra recidiva de tumor borderline de ovário ocorreu seis anos após o diagnóstico inicial, quando ela estava grávida; foi tratada com tumorecto- mia realizada durante a cesariana. Em sua última consulta ambulatorial, a mulher de 27 anos não apresentava evidência da doença e tinha um filho saudável. Mesmo em estádio avançado, a cirurgia de preservação da fertilidade foi segura e factível nessa paciente com tumor borderline de ovário.

There are few data in the literature regarding obstetric and oncological outcomes of adolescents with advanced-stage borderline ovarian tumors treated with fertility spa- ring surgery. A 15 years old adolescent who was diagnosed with a stage IIIc borderline ovarian tumor, was treated with bilateral ovarian tumorectomies and adjuvant chemotherapy with platinum/taxane regimen (six cycles). During follow up she was submitted to other three tumorectomies due to borderline ovarian tumor(twice) and ovarian cysta- denoma (once). Another borderline ovarian tumorrecurren- ce occurred six years after initial diagnosis, when she was pregnant; treated with tumorectomy performed during ce- sarean section. At her last outpatient visit, the 27-year-old woman had no evidence of disease and a had healthy child. Even at an advanced stage, fertility sparing surgery was safe and feasible in this patient with borderline ovarian tumor.

p16INK4a, Cytokeratin 7, and Ki-67 as Potential Markers for Low-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Progression.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate p16, cytokeratin 7 (CK7), and Ki-67 immunoexpressions in low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), looking for differences among cases that progress to high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, maintain LSIL, or regress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six LSIL biopsies were studied. In the follow-up, a second biopsy showed 28.7% regression, 37.9% LSIL, and 33.4% progressed to high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Immunostaining for these markers were performed in the first biopsy. A qualitative evaluation method was used, as well as histomorphometry, using ImageJ software. Pearson χ, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Fisher tests were used to compare the groups (P ≤ .05). A cutoff point was assessed through receiver operating characteristic curve positive cell ratio, for each marker, as progression predictors. RESULTS: The mean age of patients with and without progression was 33 and 27 years (P = .006), respectively. The qualitative evaluation indicated a tendency of progression, but without statistical significance. However, through histomorphometry, the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed cutoff points of 0.396, 0.345, and 0.026 for p16, CK7, and Ki-67 ratios, respectively, as predictors of progression (P = .003, .03, and .002, respectively). In a logistic regression analysis, p16, CK7, and Ki-67 positive cell ratio showed a significant correlation with progression (P = .036, .012, and .006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: p16, CK7, and Ki-67 may represent useful biomarkers that can identify LSIL lesions that need particular attention.

p16(INK) (4a) expression as a potential marker of low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia progression.

To evaluate p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in CIN1 lesions looking for differences between cases that progress to CIN2/3 maintain CIN1 diagnosis, or spontaneously regress. Seventy-four CIN1 biopsies were studied. In the follow-up, a second biopsy was performed and 28.7% showed no lesion (regression), 37.9% maintained CIN1, and 33.4% progressed to CIN2/3. Immunostaining for p16(INK) (4a) was performed in the first biopsy and it was considered positive when there was strong and diffuse staining of the basal and parabasal layers. Pearson's chi-square was used to compare the groups (p ≤ 0.05). The age of the patients was similar. There was no significant difference in p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in the groups, however, statistical analyses showed a significant association when only the progression and regression groups were compared (p = 0.042). Considering p16(INK) (4a) positivity and the progression to CIN2/3, the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values in our cohort were 45%, 75%, 47%, and 94%, respectively. We emphasize that CIN1 with p16(INK) (4a) staining was associated with lesion progression, but the sensitivity was not high. However, the negative predictive value was more reliable (94%) and p16(INK) (4a) may represent a useful biomarker that can identify CIN1 lesions that need particular attention, complementing morphology.