Morphological and molecular basis of ovarian serous carcinoma

Dniel G Rosen, Zhihong Zhng,b, Weiwei Shn, Jinsong Liu*

aDepartment of Pathology, the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA

bDepartment of Pathology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, Jiangsu Province, China

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian epithelial carcinoma is the second most frequent type of cancer in the female genital tract,and the most lethal gynecological malignancy[1-3]. It is estimated that in 2010 a total of 21,880 new ovarian cancer cases will be diagnosed and 13,850 will die of this disease in the USA[4]. Ovarian carcinoma encompasses a heterogeneous groups of disease with several different isotopes. Among them, serous carcinoma is the most common type and accounts for more than 45%[5,6]of malignant epithelial ovarian tumors.In this review we summarize recent advances in the pathology of ovarian serous cancers, and discuss the molecular and genetic evidence supporting the 2-tiered developmental systems of ovarian serous cancers.

MORPHOLOGIC FEATURES

Gross appearance

Serous carcinoma of the ovary varies greatly in size ranging from microscopic to over several kilograms.The external surface of the lesion may be smooth,coarse or sometimes entirely exophytic showing papillary structures denoting a serous surface carcinoma.High grade serous carcinomas often show solid, multiloculated cystic areas signified by necrosis, friability and hemorrhage. On clinical presentation, ovarian serous carcinoma is usually a large mass with bilateral presentation in the ovary in two-thirds of cases.Omental metastases are often present consisting of white or gray confluent nodules known as "omental cake".

Histology

Low-grade serous carcinoma

Low grade serous carcinomas are usually characterized by a papillary growth occupying a variable extent of a cystic lining. The lining cells show minimal nuclear atypia (Fig. 1A and 1B). It is very common to see cellular buds without fibrovascular stroma that appear unattached to the main papillae. The presence of frank destructive invasion (＞3.0 mm)of the ovarian stroma is required to differentiate low-grade serous carcinomas from serous tumors of low malignant potential. Signs of invasion can be determined by the presence of a desmoplastic reaction of the stroma with variable degrees of lymphocytic inflammatory infiltration into surrounding small nests of tumor cells, and necrosis and hemorrhage are usually absent. In rare occasions, only a solid growth pattern is identified without a cystic component. In this case the cytologic atypia of the neoplastic cells is helpful to distinguish low-grade serous lesions from high grade lesions. The lining cells in low grade serous carcinoma show uniform nuclei with mild size variation, uniform chromatin pattern and small conspicuous nucleoli, while high grade serous carcinoma show marked nuclear atypia(see below). Mitotic figures are scant, usually less than 12 mitosis/10 high-power fields (HPFs)(mean is 4 mitosis/10 HPFs)[7]. Psammoma bodies, which are small, whorled calcifications, may be present.

High grade serous carcinoma

High-grade serous carcinoma is often composed by both a complex papillary pattern and a solid pattern of serous cells with marked nuclear atypia (Fig. 1C and 1D). In general, the pattern is a mixture of cystic, papillary, and solid growth, but it is not unusual to find one pattern more predominant than others. Extensive cellular budding, obvious nuclear atypia and diffuse stromal invasion are common in solid growth areas.Laminated psammoma bodies can be present but in a less extent than those in low-grade serous carcinoma.Isolated bizarre tumor giant cells are commonly seen.In some occasions, multi-nucleation can be present,and cells are positive for human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)resembling syncytiotrophoblast cells.Mitosis, including abnormal mitosis, are usually numerous (＞12 mitosis/10 HPFs), and necrosis is often extensive. Less common of a gland-like pattern can be seen mimicking endometrioid type carcinoma of the ovary. Typically, these glands are composed of irregular slit-like spaces. More rarely, high-grade serous carcinomas can mimic adenoid cytic carcinoma, undergoing squamous differentiation, having microcysts,or having a focal reticular pattern of a yolk sac tumor.

Fig. 1 The morphology of ovarian serous carcinoma. A: low power view (×100)of low grade serous carcinoma (up left)arising from micropapillary low grade serous carcinoma (low right). B: high power view (×400)showing uniform nuclei of low grade serous carcinoma. C: low power view (×100)of low-grade serous carcinoma. D: high power view (×400)of high grade serous carcinoma showing marked nuclear atypia.

IMMUNO-PROFILE

Immunohistochemically, serous carcinomas are positive for cytokeratin 7 (100%)[8], CAM 5.2 (100%),epithelial membrane antigen (100%)[9], B72.3 (92%),WT-1 (100%), p53 (81%), and CA-125 (91%)[10,11].Other markers less commonly expressed are cytokeratin 20 (34%), vimentin (45%), S-100 (30%)and carcinoembryonic antigen (19%). Serous carcinomas are consistently negative for calretinin and other mesothelial markers[10]. About half of the cases of ovarian serous cancers are positive for estrogen, progesterone,and/or androgen receptors[12].

GRADING SYSTEMS

Many studies have reported that the grade of ovarian carcinoma is an important prognostic factor and therapeutic implication[13-17]. However, there is no agreement among pathologists regarding a uniform histological grading system for ovarian serous carcinoma. Current grading systems lack consistent criteria and have poor reproducibility. For example, the FIGO system[18]is based on architectural features; the WHO system[19]is based on the observer's impression of architectural and cytologic features; the Silverberg's system[20]is based on the architectural pattern, cytologic atypia, and mitotic index; the M.D. Anderson Two-Tier System[7]is based on nuclear atypia and the mitotic rate; the Bichel/Jakobsen system[21]is based on architectural features, cytologic features, mitotic index, invasive mode, capsular penetration, and vascular invasion; the Broder's system[22]is based on the architectural differentiation and degree of cytologic atypia.Here we review the four most commonly used systems for grading ovarian serous carcinomas.

The FIGO grading system

In 1971, the FIGO system emphasized on the classification and staging of the female pelvis tumors, showing an important impact on prognosis.The proposed grading system of ovary was similar to that of the uterine endometrial cancer[23], and was based on architectural features[18]. This system has been widely used for a long time and is still in use by some institutions. The grading is defined by the ratio of glandular or papillary structures vs solid tumor growth pattern. In this system, Grade 1 is defined as having less than 5% of solid tumor growth; Grade 2 is having 5% to 50% of solid tumor growth, and Grade 3 is equivalent to having more than 50% solid tumor growth[20]. Multiple investigators[14,15,24,25]used the FIGO grading system in their studies. However,it can be quite subjective in term of defining these so called solid areas.

The World Health Organization grading system

The WHO grading system[19]recommended a threetiered grading system. It takes into account histo-architectural features and cytologic atypia. As such, the WHO grading system is a very subjective one relying on the observer's experience without quantitative measurement[15,20,26]. Like FIGO system, WHO system distinguishes between low, intermediate, and high grade serous cancers using an "intuitive" method[27].The architectural pattern is evaluated as it is in the FIGO system, and cytologic features are judged by the observer's impression of the degree of cellular differentiation, such as mild, moderate or poor differentiation. Several authors[13,28]reported using this system in their articles.

The Silverberg's group system

Silverberg's group[15,20]suggested a grading system in analogy to one used in grading mammary carcinomas. They found that their system had valuable prognostic information and could be used in all histological types of cancers. This system relies on assessments of architectural pattern, nuclear atypia, and mitotic activity. The tumors are graded as following: architectural pattern (predominant): glandular pattern scores 1 point, papillary pattern scores 2 points, and solid pattern scores 3 points; nuclear pleomorphism: slight atypia scores 1 point, moderate atypia scores 2 points,and marked atypia scores 3 points; mitotic activity (in most active region count mitotic figures/10HPFs): up to 9/10HPFs scores 1 point, 10-24/10HPFs scores 2 points, and ＞25/10HPFs scores 3 points. When the 3 numbers from these 3 aspects are combined, Grade 1 is defined as a total score equal to 3-5 points, Grade 2 to 6-7 points, and Grade 3 to 8-9 points. The total score separates cancers into well differentiated (G1),moderately differentiated (G2), and poorly differentiated (G3)groups. As mentioned above, this system is simplified and highly reproducible compared with the others. In a study carried out by Mayr et al[29], the Silverberg's grading system was tested on a series of 192 ovarian carcinomas and provided evidence for the validity of this grading system. Sato et al[30]applied this system to 70 cases of ovarian carcinomas and obtained similar results. Both authors showed that this grading system can be easily applied to different types of ovarian cancers excluding ovarian clear cell carcinoma including mestastatic carcinoma[31].

Two-Tier System

The two-tier grading system[7]for ovarian serous carcinoma was developed by researchers in the M.D.Anderson Cancer Center and has been in use at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for more than 10 y with excellent results. The two-tier grading system is based primarily on the assessment of nuclear atypia and the mitotic rate of cancer cells. Unlike other grading systems mentioned above, this system consists of two groups: grade 1 (low-grade)and grade 2 (high-grade),and only evaluates ovarian serous carcinoma. Nuclear features of "low-grade" serous cancers are defined as mild to moderate atypia with uniformly round or oval nuclei. On the other hand, nuclear features of the"high-grade" counterparts are characterized as pleomorphism by variation 3:1 in nuclear size and shape with macronucleoli. The mitotic index (in the most mitotically active area of the tumor)is evaluated as such: if there are less than 12 mitotic figures/10 HPFs,the cancer belongs to the low-grade group; if more than 12 mitotic figures/10 HPFs, the specimen is a high-grade cancer. This system has good overall correlation to the Silverberg and FIGO systems, is userfriendly, and appears to have good reproducibility[7].

These four common grading systems are summarized in Table 1. It is interesting that many published articles have come to the same conclusion with regard to the prognostic significance of histopathology grade despite the use of different grading systems. However,recent advance in molecular genetics demonstrated that ovarian serous carcinoma developed along two distinct pathways: the low-grade and the high-grade pathways. Thus, as is detailed below, genetic analysis of ovarian serous cancers further supports the practicality of the two-tier system but not other grading systems developed at M.D. Anderson Cancer[32].

Table 1 The four most commonly used grading systems for ovarian serous cancer

GENETIC FEATURES

Genetic features of low-grade serous carcinoma

Kirsten RAS oncogene homolog (KRAS):KRAS is a member of the mammalian RAS gene superfamily that encodes a small protein GTPase. KRAS is one of the best-documented oncogenes, and is frequently activated by missense mutations in about 25% of all the human cancers[33]. In the ovary, KRAS mutations are more common in mucinous than in nonmucinous ovarian carcinomas[34]. In ovarian serous cancers, KRAS is mutated in predominantly in lowgrade but not in high-grade serous cancers[35]. Singer's groups performed digital PCR analysis of KRAS mutations in low-grade and high-grade ovarian serous carcinomas and found that KRAS activating mutations at codons 12 and 13 were prevalent in low-grade and borderline serous cancers, but were completely absent in their high-grade counterparts they examined[32]. In low-grade ovarian serous carcinomas, estimated 27%to 54% of cases harbor mutations in KRAS oncogene,whereas in high-grade serous carcinomas, mutation rate of KRAS ranges from 0 to 12%[36,37].

BRAF:The RAF family of genes encode cytoplasmic serine-threonine kinases that are activated by Ras oncogenes, mediating cellular response to growth stimulatory signals. Somatic missense mutations of BRAF have been identified in a variety of cancers including ovarian serous borderline tumor and lowgrade serous carcinoma in the RAS-RAF-MEK (mitogen/extracellular signal-regulated kinase)-ERK (extracellular signal-regulated kinase)-MAPK (mitogenactivated protein kinase)pathway[38,39]. However,mutations of BRAF oncogene are rare in invasive high-grade serous carcinoma and in non-serous ovar-ian tumors[37]. Somatic mutations of BRAF occur exclusively within the kinase domain, and in 80% cases constitutively activated BRAF is the result of a single amino-acid substitution (V599E)[38]. Davies et al[38]reported that BRAF mutations in the ovary were largely associated with low-grade serous carcinomas, and not with high grade serous carcinomas. Together, KRAS or BRAF mutations are present in 68% of low-grade serous carcinomas, whereas they have not been identified in high-grade serous carcinoma[1,32,40]. Notably,KRAS and BRAF mutations in serous borderline tumor or low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma are generally mutually exclusive[41].

Genetic features of high-grade serous carcinoma

p53:p53 gene is a transcription factor activated by damages to the genome, involved in DNA damage response and activation of apoptosis. p53 is perhaps the most widely studied tumor suppressor gene in the history of human cancer research. Mutations or overexpression of p53 occur in 50% to 80% of human ovarian serous carcinomas[42,43]. Elevated expression of p53 gene has been shown an independent prognostic factor[44]. Wen et al[16]demonstrated that patients with p53 mutations and/or overexpression had statistically significant shortened overall survival in 105 ovarian carcinoma cases. Mutations and immunohistochemical overexpression of p53 occur in as much as 95% highgrade[40,42,45]; and only 10% to 28% low-grade serous carcinomas[43]. Some studies showed that p53 mutations in low-grade tumors generally appear to occur late in tumorigenesis where they may be involved in tumor progression rather than initiation[42]. Thus, p53 mutation is a signature of high-grade but not lowgrade serous cancers.

Breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)1/2: BRCA1/2play important roles in maintaining genomic stability and act as tumor suppressors in breast and ovarian cancer development. Mutations of BRCA1/2 are associated with increased susceptibility for breast and ovarian cancer. These mutations increase the risk for developing ovarian cancer by 26%(BRCA1)and 10% (BRCA2)during a woman's life time[46]. BRCA1 mutations have a higher incidence in ovarian cancer than BRCA2 mutations do[47]. Hilton et al[48]and Geisler et al[49]identified BRCA1/2 loss-offunction mutations in a majority (84%)of ovarian carcinomas, including somatic cells and germ-line cells.They also demonstrated that loss of BRCA1/2 function was more frequently present in the sporadic and hereditary high-grade serous carcinomas as compared to the low-grade counterparts. Interactions between BRCA genes and p53 have also been documented. For example, overexpressed BRCA1 can stabilize p53[50].

Ovarian serous cancer develops through two distinct pathways

In summary, molecular and genetic studies have shown that high-grade ovarian serous carcinomas carry a high prevalence of p53 and BRCA gene mutations but not mutations in KRAS or BRAF oncogenes;on the contrary, low-grade ovarian serous cancer has a frequency of KRAS or BRAF mutations but very rarely mutations in p53 or BRCA1/2 (Table 2), suggestingthat high- and low-grade serous carcinomas develop along two distinct pathways. Indeed, morphologically low-grade serous carcinomas show fewer molecular abnormalities by both cytogenetic and single nucleotide polymorphism analysis as compared to those in the high-grade cancers[51]. Additionally, comparative genomic hybridization studies have also demonstrated that whereas low-grade serous carcinomas retained relatively intact genome structures, their high-grade counterparts exhibited extensive genomic instability[52]. Specifically, high grade serous carcinomas showed under-representation of chromosomes 11p and 13q and over-representation of chromosomes 8q and 7p, and low-grade carcinomas showed under-representation of chromosome 12p and over-representation of chromosome 18p more frequently[53]. These marked differences between high-grade and low-grade serous cancers suggest that these two types of ovarian serous cancer, in most cases, arise via different genetic pathways[1,40]. This notion has become increasingly well-received among ovarian cancer clinicians and researchers. In a study conducted in 2005, Singer et al[42]referred low-grade and high-grade serous carcinoma to TypeⅠ and TypeⅡ tumors, respectively. These authors concluded that TypeⅠovarian serous tumors are low-grade neoplasms that develop in a stepwise fashion from 'adenoma-borderline tumor-carcinoma'progression; on the other hand, TypeⅡtumors develop 'de novo' from the surface epithelium without morphologically recognizable precursor lesions and grow rapidly[42]. The clinical manifestation, morphologic features and molecular profiles of low-grade and high-grade serous carcinomas are summarized in Table 3.

Table 2 The incidence of mutations in p53, BRCA1/2,KRAS and BRAF genes in low- and high-grade ovarian serous cancers

Table 3 Difference between low- and high-grade serous carcinomas

Mechanisms underlying the evolvement of ovarian serous cancer through two distinct pathways are sufficiently explained by the genetics inherent to TypeⅠand TypeⅡovarian serous cancers.As such, the slow-growing and genomically stable TypeⅠserous cancers result from mutations in the RAS-RAF kinase pathway but not in the "genome guards" p53 and BRCA1/2. Accordingly, Type Ⅱ serous cancers exhibit widespread genomic instability and develop aggressively because of highly unstable genomic architecture attribute to inactivation of p53 or BRCA1/2 tumor suppressors[1,36,42]. Combined genetics and morphology are seamlessly unified in defining Type Ⅰ (low-grade)and Type Ⅱ (high-grade)ovarian serous cancers. This notion also offers strong support favoring the two-tier grading system developed at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center over other grading systems, which divides ovarian serous carcinomas into two groups based on histomorphology. The two-tier grading system of serous carcinoma has been widely used in many institutions in the USA, and is expected to gain rapid popularity among medical communities outside the USA as well.

Reference

[1]Shih IeM ,Kurman RJ. Ovarian tumorigenesis: a proposed model based on morphological and molecular genetic analysis. Am J Pathol 2004;164:1511-8.

[2]Wang N. Cytogenetics and molecular genetics of ovarian cancer. Am J Med Genet 2002;115:157-63.

[3]Brewer MA, Johnson K, Follen M, Gershenson D ,Bast R, Jr. Prevention of ovarian cancer: intraepithelial neoplasia. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:20-30.

[4]Jemal A, Siegal R, Xu J, Ward E. Ovarian Cancer Statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2010 July 7 (Epub ahead of print).

[5]Ishioka S, Sagae S, Ito E, Kudo R. Ultrastructural study of benign, low-malignant potential (LMP), and malignant ovarian tumors. Med Electron Microsc 2004;37:37-44.

[6]Seidman JD ,Kurman RJ. Pathology of ovarian carcinoma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2003;17:909-25.

[7]Malpica A, Deavers MT, Lu K, Bodurka DC, Atkinson EN, Gershenson DM, et al. Grading ovarian serous carcinoma using a two-tier system. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28:496-504.

[8]Cathro HP, Stoler MH. Expression of cytokeratins 7 and 20 in ovarian neoplasia. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:944-51.

[9]Davies BR, Worsley SD, Ponder BA. Expression of E-cadherin, alpha-catenin and beta-catenin in normal ovarian surface epithelium and epithelial ovarian cancers.Histopathology 1998;32:69-80.

[10]Kurman RJ. Blaustein's Pathology of the female genital tract. 5th edition ed, 2002, New York: Springer.

[11]Al-Hussaini M, Stockman A, Foster H, McCluggage WG. WT-1 assists in distinguishing ovarian from uterine serous carcinoma and in distinguishing between serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinoma. Histopathology 2004;44:109-15.

[12]Lee P, Rosen DG, Zhu C, Silva EG, Liu J. Expression of progesterone receptor is a favorable prognostic marker in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2005;96:671-7.

[13]Anttila MA, Ji H, Juhola MT, Saarikoski SV, Syrjanen KJ. The prognostic significance of p53 expression quantitated by computerized image analysis in epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1999;18:42-51.

[14]Brugghe J, Baak JP, Wiltshaw E, Brinkhuis M, Meijer GA, Fisher C. Quantitative prognostic features in FIGO I ovarian cancer patients without postoperative treatment.Gynecol Oncol 1998;68:47-53.

[15]Shimizu Y, Kamoi S, Amada S, Akiyama F, Silverberg SG. Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma: testing of a proposed system in a series of 461 patients with uniform treatment and follow-up. Cancer 1998;82:893-901.

[16]Wen WH, Reles A, Runnebaum IB, Sullivan-Halley J,Bernstein L, Jones LA, et al. p53 mutations and expression in ovarian cancers: correlation with overall survival.Int J Gynecol Pathol 1999;18:29-41.

[17]Fischer-Colbrie J, Witt A, Heinzl H, Speiser P, Czerwenka K, Sevelda P, et al. EGFR and steroid receptors in ovarian carcinoma: comparison with prognostic parameters and outcome of patients. Anticancer Res 1997;17:613-9.

[18]International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.Classification and staging of malignant tumours in the female pelvis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1971;50:1-7.

[19]Deville P, Tavassoli FA, International Agency for Research on Cancer. WHO classification of tumours: pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs World Health Organization classification of tumours. Lyon: IARCPress 2003;117-24.

[20]Silverberg SG. Histopathologic grading of ovarian carcinoma: a review and proposal. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2000;19:7-15.

[21]Bichel P, Jakobsen A. A new histologic grading index in ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1989;8:147-55.

[22]Broders A. Carcinoma: grading and practical application. Arch Pathol 1926;2:376-81.

[23]Rabban JT, Bell DA. Current issues in the pathology of ovarian cancer. J Reprod Med 2005;50:467-74.

[24]Bertelsen K, Holund B, Andersen E. Reproducibility and prognostic value of histologic type and grade in early epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1993;3:72-9.

[25]Finn CB, Dunn J, Buxton EJ, Luesley DM, Shafi M. Can we predict a high risk group in stage I epithelial ovarian cancer? Int J Gynecol Cancer 1993;3:226-30.

[26]Silverberg SG. Toward the development of a universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1999;73:170-1.

[27]Brugghe J, Baak JP, Wiltshaw E ,Fisher C. Further evaluation of reproducibility and prognostic value of histologic typing and grading in FIGO stage I ovarian cancer patients without systemic locoregional adjuvant treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1995;5:262-8.

[28]Ross JS, Yang F, Kallakury BV, Sheehan CE, Ambros RA, Muraca PJ. HER-2/neu oncogene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization in epithelial tumors of the ovary. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111:311-6.

[29]Mayr D, Diebold J. Grading of ovarian carcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2000;19:348-53.

[30]Sato Y, Shimamoto T, Amada S, Asada Y, Hayashi T.Prognostic value of histologic grading of ovarian carcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2003;22:52-6.

[31]Ishioka S, Sagae S, Sugimura M, Nishioka Y, Kobayashi K, Kudo R. Clinical factors and biomarkers which affect a new universal grading system for ovarian epithelial carcinoma. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2001;27:313-8.

[32]Singer G, Oldt R, Cohen Y, Wang BG, Sidransky D,Kurman RJ, et al. Mutations in BRAF and KRAS characterize the development of low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:484-6.

[33]Gemignani ML, Schlaerth AC, Bogomolniy F, Barakat RR, Lin O, Soslow R, et al. Role of KRAS and BRAF gene mutations in mucinous ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:378-81.

[34]Cuatrecasas M, Villanueva A, Matias-Guiu X, Prat J.K-ras mutations in mucinous ovarian tumors: a clinicopathologic and molecular study of 95 cases. Cancer 1997;79:1581-6.

[35]Hogdall EV, Hogdall CK, Blaakaer J, Christensen L,Bock JE, Vuust J, et al. K-ras alterations in Danish ovarian tumour patients. From the Danish "Malova" Ovarian Cancer study. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:31-6.

[36]Russell SE ,McCluggage WG. A multistep model for ovarian tumorigenesis: the value of mutation analysis in the KRAS and BRAF genes. J Pathol 2004;203:617-9.

[37]Sieben NL, Macropoulos P, Roemen GM, Kolkman-Uljee SM, Jan Fleuren G, Houmadi R, et al. In ovarian neoplasms, BRAF, but not KRAS, mutations are restricted to low-grade serous tumours. J Pathol 2004;202:336-40.

[38]Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, Stephens P, Edkins S,Clegg S, et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 2002;417:949-54.

[39]Cohen Y, Xing M, Mambo E, Guo Z, Wu G, Trink B,et al. BRAF mutation in papillary thyroid carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:625-7.

[40]Bell DA. Origins and molecular pathology of ovarian cancer. Mod Pathol 2005;18 Suppl 2:S19-32.

[41]Shigematsu H, Gazdar AF. Somatic mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor signaling pathway in lung cancers. Int J Cancer 2006;118:257-62.

[42]Singer G, Stohr R, Cope L, Dehari R, Hartmann A, Cao DF, et al. Patterns of p53 mutations separate ovarian serous borderline tumors and low- and high-grade carcinomas and provide support for a new model of ovarian carcinogenesis: a mutational analysis with immunohistochemical correlation. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:218-24.

[43]Schuijer M, Berns EM. TP53 and ovarian cancer. Hum Mutat 2003;21:285-91.

[44]Geisler JP, Geisler HE. Tumor markers and molecular biological markers in gynecologic malignancies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2001;13:31-9.

[45]Nnene IO, Nieto JJ, Crow JC, Sundaresan M, MacLean AB, Perrett CW, et al. Cell cycle and apoptotic proteins in relation to ovarian epithelial morphology. Gynecol Oncol 2004;92:247-51.

[46]Ford D, Easton DF. The genetics of breast and ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 1995;72:805-12.

[47]Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, Narod S, Goldgar D,Devilee P, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.Am J Hum Genet 1998;62:676-89.

[48]Hilton JL, Geisler JP, Rathe JA, Hattermann-Zogg MA,DeYoung B, Buller RE. Inactivation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1396-406.

[49]Geisler JP, Hatterman-Zogg MA, Rathe JA, Buller RE.Frequency of BRCA1 dysfunction in ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:61-7.

[50]Scully R, Anderson SF, Chao DM, Wei W, Ye L, Young RA, et al. BRCA1 is a component of the RNA polymerase II holoenzyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997;94:5605-10.

[51]Gilks CB. Subclassification of ovarian surface epithelial tumors based on correlation of histologic and molecular pathologic data. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2004;23:200-5.

[52]Iwabuchi H, Sakamoto M, Sakunaga H, Ma YY, Carcangiu ML, Pinkel D, et al. Genetic analysis of benign,low-grade, and high-grade ovarian tumors. Cancer Res 1995;55:6172-80.

[53]Kiechle M, Jacobsen A, Schwarz-Boeger U, Hedderich J, Pfisterer J, Arnold N. Comparative genomic hybridization detects genetic imbalances in primary ovarian carcinomas as correlated with grade of differentiation.Cancer 2001;91:534-40.