Objective: Serous neoplasms of the female pelvis share a müllerian phenotype. Unlike low-grade serous neoplasms (LGSNs), high-grade serous carcinomas (HGSCs) commonly display p53 mutations. The current study correlates p53 immunoreactivity in peritoneal washings with the cytologic interpretation and histology of the corresponding serous neoplasm. Study Design: Peritoneal washings from consecutive cases of pelvic serous neoplasms were identified (n = 45, 31 HGSCs and 14 LGSNs), with a control population selected from benign resections. Immunoreactivity for p53 was scored as a percentage of positive epithelioid cells by blinded manual cell count. Results: Washings from LGSNs and HGSCs were cytomorphologically positive with similar frequency (57 vs. 77%, respectively, p = 0.15, Fisher’s exact test). Immunoreactivity for p53 was not predictive of morphologic positivity. The percentage of p53-positive cells was higher in HGSCs (47 ± 42%), compared to LGSNs (9 ± 9%) and negative controls (2 ± 2%, n = 10). The difference in p53 immunoreactivity was statistically significant (p < 0.00009, ANOVA). Conclusions: The proportion of p53 immunoreactive cells was higher in cases of HGSCs, reflecting the importance of p53 mutations in high-grade serous tumorigenesis. The presence of p53 staining is not diagnostic for neoplastic cells; however, peritoneal washings are potential specimens in the investigation of serous neoplasia.

1.
Lee KR, Tavassoli FA, Prat J, et al: Surface epithelial-stromal tumours; in Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds): WHO Classification of Tumors, Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Lyon, France, IARC Press, 2003, pp 117–145.
2.
Malpica A, Deavers MT, Lu K, et al: Grading ovarian serous carcinoma using a two-tier system. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28:496–504.
3.
Malpica A, Deavers MT, Tornos C, et al: Interobserver and intraobserver variability of a two-tier system for grading ovarian serous carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;31:1168–1174.
4.
Teneriello MG, Ebina M, Linnoila RI, et al: p53 and K-ras gene mutations in epithelial ovarian neoplasms. Cancer Res 1993;53:3103–3108.
5.
Seidman JD, Kurman RJ: Subclassification of serous borderline tumors of the ovary into benign and malignant types: a clinicopathologic study of 65 advanced stage cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:1331–1345.
6.
Singer G, Oldt R III, Cohen Y, et al: Mutations in BRAF and KRAS characterize the development of low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:484–486.
7.
Bonome T, Lee J-Y, Park D-C, et al: Expression profiling of serous low malignant potential, low-grade, and high-grade tumors of the ovary. Cancer Res 2005;65:10602–10612.
8.
Plaxe SC: Epidemiology of low-grade serous ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:459.e1–459.e9.
9.
Ho C-L, Kurman RJ, Dehari R, Wang TL, Shih IeM: Mutations of BRAF and KRAS precede the development of ovarian serous borderline tumors. Cancer Res 2004;64:6915–6918.
10.
Dalrymple JC, Bannatyne P, Russell P, et al: Extraovarian peritoneal serous papillary carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study of 31 cases. Cancer 1989;64:110–115.
11.
Shih IeM, Kurman RJ: Ovarian tumorigenesis: a proposed model based on morphological and molecular genetic analysis. Am J Pathol 2004;164:1511–1518.
12.
Singer G, Stohr R, Cope L, et al. Patterns of p53 mutations separate ovarian 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;29:218–224.
13.
Cheung TK, Cunningham JM, Webb MJ, Goellner JR, Kovach JS: Detection of p53 antigen expression in cytologic preparations of ovarian carcinomas. Anticancer Res 1994;14:1335–1338.
14.
Klemi PJ, Takahashi S, Joensuu H, Kiilholma P, Narimatsu E, Mori M: Immunohistochemical detection of p53 protein in borderline and malignant serous ovarian tumors. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1994;13:228–233.
15.
Reles A, Schmider A, Press MF, et al: Immunostaining of p53 protein in ovarian carcinoma: correlation with histopathological data and clinical outcome. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1996;122:489–494.
16.
Geisler JP, Geisler HE, Wiemann MC, Givens SS, Zhou Z, Miller GA: Quantification of p53 in epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1997;66:435–438.
17.
Eltabbakh GH, Belinson JL, Kennedy AW, et al: p53 overexpression is not an independent prognostic factor for patients with primary ovarian epithelial cancer. Cancer 1997;80:892–898.
18.
Lee Y, Miron A, Drapkin R, et al: A candidate precursor to serous carcinoma that originates in the fallopian tube. J Pathol 2007;211:26–35.
19.
Jarboe E, Folkins A, Nucci MR, et al: Serous carcinogenesis in the fallopian tube: a descriptive classification. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2007;1–9.
20.
Folkins AK, Jarboe EA, Saleemuddin A: A candidate precursor to pelvic serous cancer (p53 signature) and its prevalence in ovaries and fallopian tubes from women with BRCA mutations. Gynecol Oncol 2008;109:168–173.
21.
Oates J, Edwards C: HBME-1, MOC-31, WT1 and calretinin: an assessment of recently described markers for mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma. Histopathology 2000;36:341–347.
22.
Zuna RE, Behrens A: Peritoneal washing cytology in gynecologic cancers: long-term follow-up of 355 patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:980–987.
23.
Fadare O, Mariappan MR, Wang S, Hileeto D, McAlpine J, Rimm DL: The histologic subtype of ovarian tumors affects the detection rate by pelvic washings. Cancer 2004;102:150–156.
24.
Skilling JS, Sood A, Niemann T, Lager DJ, Buller RE: An abundance of p53 null mutations in ovarian carcinoma. Oncogene 1996;13:117–123.
25.
Meinhold-Heerlein I, Ninci E, Ikenberg H, et al: Evaluation of methods to detect p53 mutations in ovarian cancer. Oncology 2001; 60:176–188.
26.
Walts AE, Said JW, Koeffler HP: Is immunoreactivity for p53 useful in distinguishing benign from malignant effusions? Localization of p53 gene product in benign mesothelial and adenocarcinoma cells. Mod Pathol 1994;7:462–468.
27.
Stoetzer OJ, Munker R, Darsow M, Willmans W: P53-immunoreactive cells in benign and malignant effusions: diagnostic value using a panel of monoclonal antibodies and comparison with CEA-staining. Oncol Rep 1999;6:455–458.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.