Lung adenocarcinoma metastatic to the ovary: a retrospective clinicopathological analysis of 17 cases and literature review
Wei Liu,Yan-Mei Cui,Xiao-Jiang Wang,Xian-Dong Lin,Li-Bin Zhang,Jing-Cheng Liu,Qing-Hu Lyu,Wei Chen,Dan Hu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2024.05.006
IF: 5.335
2024-07-20
Pathology
Abstract:Lung adenocarcinoma metastatic to the ovary is rarely detected in clinical practice, and only a few cases have been reported. Its clinicopathological features, molecular genetics, and prognosis have not been well characterised. The data of 17 patients diagnosed with this disease between 2013 and 2022 were analysed retrospectively. All patients were non-smokers, with a median age of 46 years (range 30-71 years). Unilateral ovarian involvement was more frequent than bilateral involvement (58.8% vs 41.2%). Lesions presented as solid ovarian or mixed cystic and solid masses, and nearly two-thirds of the tumours (11/17, 64.7%) had a diameter greater than 10 cm. Solid adenocarcinoma was the most common histological subtype (9/17, 52.9%), and three of the cases showed abundant intracellular mucin and signet ring cells. Acinar adenocarcinoma was the second most common type (6/17, 35.3%), usually of moderate to poor differentiation. The remaining two cases were identified as micropapillary adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma. Multinodular growth, necrosis, and lymphovascular invasion were observed in half of the cases, and most of them had a marked stromal response. The most prevalent molecular alteration was ALK-rearranged (8/17, 47.1%), followed by EGFR gene mutations (5/17, 29.4%). A total of 34 cases, comprising 17 from the cohort and 17 from the literature, were included in the survival analysis. Patients with ALK-rearranged genes demonstrated an 80.0% 2-year overall survival rate, whereas those without ALK rearrangement exhibited a lower rate of 33.7%. Although there appears to be a potentially better prognosis for patients with ALK-rearranged genes, further cases and an extended follow-up period are necessary to substantiate this observation.