European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2009
Comparison of dysplasia profiles in stimulated ovaries and in those with a genetic risk for ovarian cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dauplat J, Chene G, Pomel C, Dauplat M M, Le Bouëdec G, Mishellany F, Lagarde N, Bignon Y J, Jaffeux P, Aublet-Cuvelier B, Dechelotte P, Pouly J L, Penault-Llorca F
Аннотация
AIM: Ovarian epithelial dysplasia (OED) was first described after prophylactic oophorectomy for genetic risk of ovarian cancer. In light of Fathalla's incessant ovulation theory, this study was set up to describe the presence of ovarian abnormalities (dysplasia) after ovulation induction and to compare dysplasia profiles in stimulated and genetic risk ovaries.
METHODS: One-hundred and twenty-four patients who had undergone salpingo-oophorectomies or ovarian cystectomies between 1990 and 2005 were reviewed. They were divided into three groups: (1) previous in vitro fertilisation (n=35); (2) prophylactic oophorectomies for genetic risk (n=27) and (3) fertile non-cancerous controls (n=62). Eleven cytological and architectural epithelial features were defined and a dysplasia score was calculated to quantify ovarian epithelial abnormalities.
RESULTS: Mean dysplasia score was significantly higher in the genetic risk and stimulated ovary groups than in controls (9.55 versus 3.62, p<0.0001; 7.51 versus 3.62, p<0.0002, respectively). Cytological and architectural abnormalities were more frequent in the genetic risk group, while the profile of abnormalities was different in the genetic risk and stimulated groups.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings support a possible relationship between OED and the use of ovulation-stimulating drugs. The increased dysplasia score in stimulated and genetic risk ovaries might be consistent with progression towards neoplastic transformation, and may justify the use of the term dysplasia or intraepithelial ovarian neoplasia. The observation of dysplasia in the stimulated group may differentiate women at risk. Conversely, the fact that the dysplasia profile after stimulation differs from that in genetic risk ovaries suggests that ovarian stimulation may predispose to a different evolution.
METHODS: One-hundred and twenty-four patients who had undergone salpingo-oophorectomies or ovarian cystectomies between 1990 and 2005 were reviewed. They were divided into three groups: (1) previous in vitro fertilisation (n=35); (2) prophylactic oophorectomies for genetic risk (n=27) and (3) fertile non-cancerous controls (n=62). Eleven cytological and architectural epithelial features were defined and a dysplasia score was calculated to quantify ovarian epithelial abnormalities.
RESULTS: Mean dysplasia score was significantly higher in the genetic risk and stimulated ovary groups than in controls (9.55 versus 3.62, p<0.0001; 7.51 versus 3.62, p<0.0002, respectively). Cytological and architectural abnormalities were more frequent in the genetic risk group, while the profile of abnormalities was different in the genetic risk and stimulated groups.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings support a possible relationship between OED and the use of ovulation-stimulating drugs. The increased dysplasia score in stimulated and genetic risk ovaries might be consistent with progression towards neoplastic transformation, and may justify the use of the term dysplasia or intraepithelial ovarian neoplasia. The observation of dysplasia in the stimulated group may differentiate women at risk. Conversely, the fact that the dysplasia profile after stimulation differs from that in genetic risk ovaries suggests that ovarian stimulation may predispose to a different evolution.