Department of Surgery, UMDNJ-Robert
Wood Johnson
Medical School ,
Cooper University
Hospital , Camden , New Jersey .
A
Krukenberg tumor is a rare tumor of the ovary derived from metastatic
gastrointestinal tissue. Although the eponym is attributed to Dr. Friedrich
Krukenberg, a German gynecologist and pathologist, the Krukenberg tumor was
actually described by both Paget (1854) and Wilks (1859). Worldwide, they
account for about 1% of all ovarian neoplasms. Gastric cancer is the most
frequent primary source, followed by breast, colon and appendix. For those
carcinomas originating from the intestinal tract, about 80% are found within
either the sigmoid colon or rectum. Presenting symptoms include nonspecific
abdominal pain, distention, ascites, virilization, hirsutism and
menometrorrhagia.
The Krukenberg tumor was originally described by Paget
(1854). The eponym is attributed to Dr. Friedrich Krukenberg, a German
gynecologist and pathologist. In 1896, he published five case reports on what
he believed to be at the time a new type of ovarian tumor. However, in 1902,
Dr. Schlagenhauffer determined that these tumors were in fact of metastatic
gastrointestinal tract origin.
Krukenberg tumors are pathologically “signet ring
cell” ovarian adenocarcinoma. They account for 1-2% of all ovarian tumors
world-wide. In Japan, their prevalence is greatly increased to almost 20% (due
to the increased prevalence of gastric cancer).3 The stomach is the
primary site in 70% of these cases, followed by breast, colon, and appendix, in
that order.1 For those tumors originating from the intestinal tract,
80% are found to be within the sigmoid colon or rectum.1
Unfortunately, these primary colonic tumors are often too small for endoscopic
detection (i.e. colonoscopy), thereby necessitating either CT scan or
ultrasound.
Women are typically diagnosed with Krukenberg tumors
in the perimenopausal fifth decade of life, with the average age of diagnosis
being 45 years-old. It is hypothesized that this young age of diagnosis is
related to the great vascularity of their ovaries, which facilitates vascular
metastasis.1 It is interesting to note that for those patients with
Krukenberg tumors originating from the colon, the mean age of presentation is
subsequently delayed. Presenting symptoms usually include, but are not limited
to, vague abdominal pain, distention, and/or ascites. Occasionally, abnormal
vaginal bleeding, virilization and hirsutism can be seen.4
Krukenberg tumors are bilateral in 80% of cases.3
The route of metastasis from the gastrointestinal tract to the ovaries is
hypothesized to be via lymphatics. The mortality rate for Krukenberg tumors is
relatively high and a majority of patients die within two years of diagnosis,
with a median 5-year survival of 14 months.3 The prognosis is poor
if the primary tumor is identified after ovarian metastasis has occurred, and
even worse if the primary is unidentified.5
Metastatic adenocarcinoma to the uterine cervix from
the gastrointestinal tract is rare and very few cases are reported. The route
of metastasis to the cervix is surmised to be retrograde via lymphatics,
similar to the pathway of metastases to the ovary.6 Cervical
metastasis may often be the presenting symptom, discovered either synchronously
or after the diagnosis of gastro-intestinal carcinoma has been made.
Unfortunately, for this subset of Krukenberg tumor patients, their diagnosis is
poor no matter when their cervical metastasis is identified.6
Gross findings of a Krukenberg tumor-containing ovary
include asymmetrical enlargement, lobular contour, and either solid or cystic
consistency. Commonly, the ovaries are spared from intra-peritoneal adhesions
and present without any peritoneal deposits.3 Kiyokawa et al.
reported that Krukenberg tumors can range in texture from firm and solid to
edematous and gelatinous, with only approximately 30% containing cysts. They
also found the mean size to be 10.4 cm.4
Microscopically, the Krukenberg tumor is composed of
mucin-laden signet-ring cells and ovarian stromal cells. Krukenberg tumors can
either display a prominent tubular pattern or one that is clustered. Lobular
patterns, with nodules separated by stroma, can also be seen. Mucin-laden
signet ring cells are essential for the diagnosis of a Krukenberg tumor.3
However, sometimes the desmoplastic reaction of the stromal cells can be so
severe that it obscures the signet-ring pattern. The literature describes great
variation in the different cellular atypia. The stroma can range from cellular
to paucicellular and from edematous to mucoid. The degree of signet-ring cell
prominence also varies from case to case.4 The overall morphology of
the adenocarcinoma is graded based on the presence of mucin, edema, stromal
patterns and the number of signet-cells. Often it is difficult to differentiate
between primary and metastatic ovarian carcinoma. Careful attention must be
paid to the microscopic finding of invasion and implantation to distinguish the
two metastatic modes.1 Based on 120 Krukenberg tumor cases, Kiyokawa
determined that the histological spectrum is much more diverse than what has
been previously reported.4
In these aforementioned cases, special diagnostic
stains can be used to highlight the presence of signet cells.
Immunohistochemistry can also be used to decipher metastatic carcinoma from
primary ovarian neoplasms.1 The ovarian tumors that are
immunoreactive to CEA, stain positive for cytokeratin 20 (CK20) and negative
for cytokeratin 7 (CK7), are more likely to be of colorectal origin and
increase the pathologist’s confidence in making the diagnosis of a Krukenberg
tumor.3 This differs from primary ovarian tumors, since they usually
test positive for CK 7 and negative for CK 20. Other immunohistochemicals
currently under investigation include CD44v6, vascular endothelial growth
factor, and matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 9 (MMP-2 and MMP-9). Lou et al.
compared 35 cases of Krukenberg tumor to normal tissue and found that the
expression rate of CD44v6, VEGF, MMP-2 and MMP-9 were significantly higher in
those with Krukenberg tumors.7 However, these factors were also
found within primary epithelial ovarian carcinomas and were therefore not
exclusive to Krukenberg tumors.5 CA-125 is a tumor marker elevated
in patients with Krukenberg tumors and usually found to decrease after
resection. Therefore CA-125 can be used either for post-operative follow up
and/or for patients with a history of adenocarcinoma with no identifiable
ovarian metastasis.3
There is currently no optimal or curative treatment
strategy for Krukenberg tumors. Surgical resection has only been shown to be
effective in patients with limited metastasis confined to the ovaries.3
Patients often experience recurrence after curative surgery thereby preventing
them from receiving further treatment. For these types of patients, Cheong et
al. investigated the role of metastectomy for the management of metachronous
tumors following curative surgery. Their study found the median survival for
patients undergoing metastatic resection was significantly increased versus the
non-resection control group (17 months vs. 3 months).5 Further
investigation is warranted to decide the optimal role of surgery in patients
with Krukenberg tumors.
Chirurgia (Bucur). 2008
Jan-Feb;103(1):23-38.
[Features of Krukenberg-type tumors--clinical study and review].
Mateş
IN, Iosif
C, Bănceanu
G, Ionescu
M, Peltecu
G, Dinu
D, Constantin
A, Hoară
P, Mitru
C, Constantinoiu
S.
Source
Clinica de Chirurgie Generală şi Esofagiană Sfânta Maria, U.M.E Carol Davila, Bucureşti. dmates@gmail.com
Abstract
Krukenberg-type tumors (KT) are rare among ovarian metastases, but responsible for the most frequent diagnostic confusions with ovarian cancer. They are peculiar: uncertain pathogenesis, challenging etiological diagnosis, poorer prognosis for the primary. We studied 9 cases, with a mean age of 52 years, operated since 2001; no case was discovered as a result of prophylactic oophorectomy. Timing of TK diagnosis: 3--metachronous, 4--synchronous, as incidental discovery and 2--retrospective pathological diagnosis. Site of primary: 3--gastric, 5--colonic or appendiceal, 1--breast. Imaging appearance was useful only if interpreted in clinical conditions. Morphology: 7/9 bilateral, solid or mixed gross appearance, oval, mean diameters 9.4/7.8 cm. Microscopy: in 8 KT of digestive origin, 3--signet-ring cell carcinoma, 3--mucinous adenocarcinoma, 2--mixed pattern; 1 KT or breast origin was diagnosed by immunohistochemistry; 6/9 presented microscopic peritoneal despite a lack of strong correlation with the appearance of carcinomatosis or cytology of ascites. Survival: 3--no evidence, 5--disease-free after 4-13 months, 1--survived 2 years after debulking (4 years after colectomy). Clinical, evolutive and prognostic features of KT are determined by the biologically behavior of the primary (rapid lymphatic and hematogenous spread to the ovary), so the benefit of surgery is limited. Bilateral ovarian tumors, particularly in premenopausal women, must raise a high index of suspicion for KT, before or during surgery; diagnosis is a team challenge.
Adv Anat Pathol. 2006
Sep;13(5):205-27.
From krukenberg to today: the ever present problems posed by metastatic
tumors in the ovary: part I. Historical
perspective, general principles, mucinous tumors including the krukenberg
tumor.
Young
RH.
Source
James Homer Wright Pathology Laboratories, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. ryoung@partners.org
Abstract
This review considers historical aspects of metastatic tumors to the ovary, general principles that aid in their evaluation, and metastatic mucinous tumors, including the Krukenberg tumor. The historical timeline on the Krukenberg tumor dates back to the legendary Sir James Paget and the story is followed through the well-known, albeit flawed, contribution of Friedrich Krukenberg and others who have contributed important papers over the years, including the overlooked contribution of the French investigator Gauthier-Villars. Knowledge of metastatic colorectal carcinoma is traced back to the famed British surgeon Sir John Bland-Sutton and followed through to more recent contributions, including the important one of Lash and Hart. Contributions on mucinous tumors conclude the historical perspective, note being made of the recent evidence suggesting that the long held contention of Dr Robert E. Scully that ovarian mucinous tumors in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei usually originate from the appendix is correct. The section on general principles highlights the many clinical, gross, microscopic, and special techniques such as immunohistochemistry that may aid in determining that an ovarian tumor is metastatic with emphasis on the first 3 mentioned aspects. Problematic features such as a tendency for metastatic tumors to be cystic, even when the primary tumors are not, and for many metastatic tumors to mature in the ovary (so-called maturation phenomenon), are emphasized. Of the many helpful findings that resolve the problem, the characteristic features of surface implants are highlighted. The contribution on the Krukenberg tumor reviews the varied microscopy of this tumor pointing out that the well-known pattern of signet-ring cells in a cellular stroma, albeit characteristic, is often not striking and frequently overshadowed by other microscopic features. The latter include, in many cases, a rather unique microcystic pattern. The final portion of the essay reviews mucinous tumors of non-Krukenberg type, beginning with those that originate from the appendix. The appendiceal neoplasms have distinctive features in most cases being particularly well differentiated, and this is also seen in their ovarian metastases. Other mucinous tumors that commonly simulate closely metastatic neoplasms, include those from the pancreas in particular, but also diverse other sites, are then reviewed.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét