Submitted:
07 August 2025
Posted:
08 August 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Summary of Main Results
4.2. Results in the Context of Published Literature
4.3. Strengths and Weaknesses
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gu, Y.; Wang, D.; Jia, C.; et al. Clinical characteristics and oncological outcomes of recurrent adult granulosa cell tumor of ovary: a retrospective study of seventy patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023, 102, 782–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bryk, S.; Färkkilä, A.; Bützow, R.; et al. Characteristics and outcome of recurrence in molecularly defined adult-type ovarian granulosa cell tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2016, 143, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mangili, G.; Ottolina, J.; Gadducci, A.; et al. Long-term follow-up is crucial after treatment for granulosa cell tumours of the ovary. Br J Cancer. 2013, 109, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Likic Ladjevic, I.; Dotlic, J.; Stefanovic, K.; et al. Fertility-sparing surgery for non-epithelial ovarian malignancies: ten-year retrospective study of oncological and reproductive outcomes. Cancers (Basel). 2025, 17, 1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Yang, J.; Zhang, X.; et al. Role of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IC ovarian granulosa cell tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Oncol. 2025 Apr 14. [CrossRef]
- Ray, L.J.; Young, R.H.; Sabbagh, M.F.; et al. Adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary with tubular differentiation: a report of 80 examples of an underemphasized feature with clinicopathologic and genomic differences from other sex cord-stromal tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2025, 49, 770–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Levin, G.; Zigron, R.; Haj-Yahya, R.; et al. Granulosa cell tumor of ovary: a systematic review of recent evidence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018, 225, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oktar, O.; Korkmaz, V.; Tokalıoğlu, A.; et al. Prognostic factors of adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary: a Turkish retrospective multicenter study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2024, 35, e39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizzo, S.; Avesani, G.; Panico, C.; et al. Ovarian cancer staging and follow-up: updated guidelines from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology female pelvic imaging working group. Eur Radiol. 2025, 35, 4029–4039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inzani, F.; Santoro, A.; Travaglino, A.; et al. Prognostic predictors in recurrent adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022, 306, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iyibozkurt, A.C.; Topuz, S.; Gungor, F.; et al. Factors affecting recurrence and disease-free survival in granulosa cell tumors of the ovary. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2010, 31, 667–671. [Google Scholar]
- Sehouli, J.; Drescher, F.S.; Mustea, A.; et al. Granulosa cell tumor of the ovary: 10 years follow-up data of 65 patients. Anticancer Res. 2004;24(2C):1223–1229.
- Le, D.T.; Do, T.A.; Nguyen, L.L.T.; et al. Clinical and paraclinical features, outcome, and prognosis of ovarian granulosa cell tumor: a retrospective study of 28 Vietnamese women. Rare Tumors. 2022, 14, 20363613221148547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babarović, E.; Franin, I.; Klarić, M.; et al. Adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary: a retrospective study of 36 FIGO stage I cases with emphasis on prognostic pathohistological features. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst). 2018, 2018, 9148124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhusaini, H.; Elshenawy, M.A.; Badran, A.; et al. Adult-type ovarian granulosa cell tumour: treatment outcomes from a single-institution experience. Cureus. 2022, 14, e31045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şahin, M.; Arslanca, T.; Uçar, Y.Ö.; et al. The experience of a tertiary center for adult granulosa cell tumor: which factors predict survival? J Ovarian Res. 2024, 17, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, M.K.; Fong, P.; Mesnage, S.; et al. Stage I granulosa cell tumours: a management conundrum? Results of long-term follow up. Gynecol Oncol. 2015, 138, 285–91. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Temtanakitpaisan, A.; Kleebkaow, P.; Aue-aungkul, A. Adult-type granulosa cell ovarian tumor: clinicopathological features, outcomes, and prognostic factors. Asian Pac J Cancer Care. 2019, 4, 33–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brink, G.J.; Groeneweg, J.W.; Sickinghe, A.A.; et al. Is it time to abandon staging surgery and prolonged follow-up in patients with primary adult-type granulosa cell tumor? J Ovarian Res. 2025, 18, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Li, J.; Jiang, W. Effects of different surgical extents on prognosis of patients with malignant ovarian sex cord-stromal tumors: a retrospective cohort study. Sci Rep. 2024, 14, 22630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seagle, B.L.; Ann, P.; Butler, S.; et al. Ovarian granulosa cell tumor: a National Cancer Database study. Gynecol Oncol. 2017, 146, 285–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhuang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Liu, Y.; et al. Can adjuvant chemotherapy improve the prognosis of adult ovarian granulosa cell tumors? : a narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022, 101, e29062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tokalioglu, A.A.; Oktar, O.; Sahin, M.; et al. Defining the relationship between ovarian adult granulosa cell tumors and synchronous endometrial pathology: does ovarian tumor size correlate with endometrial cancer? J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2024, 50, 655–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shim, S.H.; Lee, S.J.; Kim, D.Y.; et al. A long-term follow-up study of 91 cases with ovarian granulosa cell tumors. Anticancer Res. 2014, 34, 1001–10. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, H.D.; Lin, H.; Jao, M.S.; Wang, K.L.; et al. A long-term follow-up study of 176 cases with adult-type ovarian granulosa cell tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2012, 124, 244–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaacoub, S.; Hajj, L.; Khairallah, A. A clinicopathological study about the epidemiology of granulosa cell tumors in Lebanon. BMC Cancer. 2024, 24, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhuang, Y.; Yang, H. The prognostic significance of adjuvant chemotherapy in adult ovarian granulosa cell tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Control. 2023, 30, 10732748231215165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plett, H.; Ricciardi, E.; Vacaru, V.; et al. Adult ovarian granulosa cell tumors: analysis of outcomes and risk factors for recurrence. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2023, 33, 734–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bergamini, A.; Cormio, G.; Ferrandina, G.; et al. Conservative surgery in stage I adult type granulosa cell tumors of the ovary: results from the MITO-9 study. Gynecol Oncol. 2019, 154, 323–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michálková, R.; Šafanda, A.; Hájková, N.; et al. The molecular landscape of 227 adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary: insights into the progression from primary to recurrence. Lab Invest. 2025, 105, 102201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brink, G.J.; Hami, N.; Nijman, H.W.; et al. The prognostic value of FOXL2 mutant circulating tumor DNA in adult granulosa cell tumor patients. Cancers (Basel). 2025, 17, 1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]



| Variable | Category | n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Menstrual Status | Premenopausal | 21 (38.2%) |
| Perimenopausal | 5 (9.1%) | |
| Postmenopausal | 29 (52.7%) | |
| Comorbidity Count | None | 25 (45.5%) |
| One | 11 (20.0%) | |
| ≥2 | 19 (34.5%) | |
| Recurrence | Absent | 42 (76.4%) |
| Present | 13 (23.6%) | |
| Recurrence Site | Local recurrence | 4 (7.3%) |
| Visceral metastasis | 3 (5.5%) | |
| Peritoneal | 6 (10.9%) | |
| Endometrial Pathology | None | 28 (50.9%) |
| Non-atypical hyperplasia | 17 (30.9%) | |
| Atypical hyperplasia | 7 (12.7%) | |
| Carcinoma | 3 (5.4%) | |
| Estrogen receptor Status | Positive | 18 (32.7%) |
| Negative | 10 (18.2%) | |
| Unknown | 27 (49.1%) | |
| Inhibin Status | Negative | 9 (16.4%) |
| Positive | 46 (83.6%) | |
| Adjuvant Treatment | None | 34 (61.8%) |
| Bleomycin-etoposide-cisplatin or etoposide-cisplatin | 16 (29.1%) | |
| Carboplatin-Paclitaxel | 5 (9.1%) | |
| Parity | Unknown | 6 (10.9%) |
| ≤2 | 33 (60.0%) | |
| ≥3 | 16 (29.1%) | |
| Symptoms | Menstrual irregularity | 8 (14.5%) |
| Abdominal distension | 21 (38.2%) | |
| Postmenopausal bleeding | 18 (32.7%) | |
| Vaginal bleeding | 5 (9.1%) | |
| Acute abdomen | 1 (1.8%) | |
| Incidental | 2 (3.6%) | |
| Surgery Type | Primary staging | 51 (92.7%) |
| Other | 4 (7.2%) | |
| Tumor Size | ≤10 cm | 35 (63.6%) |
| >10 cm | 20 (36.4%) | |
| Tumor Location | Right | 25 (45.5%) |
| Left | 30 (54.5%) | |
| Pathological Stage | Stage 1 | 49 (89.1%) |
| Stage 2 | 1 (1.8%) | |
| Stage 3 | 5 (9.1%) | |
| Mitotic Index | ≤4 | 19 (34.5%) |
| >4 | 36 (65.5%) | |
| Vital Status | Alive | 50 (90.9%) |
| Deceased | 5 (9.1%) |
| Variable | Category Comparison | Chi-Square (χ²) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endometrial pathology | None vs Non-atypical vs Atypical/Ca | 7.389 | 0.025 |
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | None vs Bleomycin-etoposide-cisplatin or etoposide-cisplatin /Carboplatin-Paclitaxel | 6.953 | 0.008 |
| Stage | Stage I–II vs Stage III | 4.029 | 0.045 |
| Age group | ≤65 vs >65 | 0.101 | 0.751 |
| Menopausal status | Pre vs Peri/Post | 0.458 | 0.498 |
| Tumor size | ≤10 cm vs >10 cm | 2.248 | 0.134 |
| Mitotic index | ≤4 vs >4 | 0.99 | 0.32 |
| Ki-67 index | ≤10% vs >10% | 0.103 | 0.749 |
| Estrogen receptor status | Negative vs Positive vs Unknown | 0.408 | 0.815 |
| Inhibin expression | Negative vs Positive | 0.561 | 0.454 |
| Variable | Univariate HR (95% CI) | p-value | Multivariate HR (95% CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage (Stage III vs. I–II) | 7.14 (1.78 – 28.73) | 0.006 | 4.45 (1.03–19.27) | 0.046 |
| Tumor size (>10 cm vs. ≤10 cm) | 3.59 (1.18 – 10.95) | 0.025 | 2.13 (0.60–7.49) | 0.241 |
| Endometrial pathology (Absent) | 0.343 (0.138 – 0.858) | 0.022 | 0.51 (0.18–1.42) | 0.197 |
| Adjuvant Chemotherapy (Yes vs. No) | 3.21 (0.96 – 10.69) | 0.058 | - | - |
| Mitotic index (>4 vs. ≤4) | 1.40 (0.54 – 3.63) | 0.488 | - | - |
| Menopausal status | 0.866 (0.501–1.495) | 0.605 | - | - |
| Ki-67 (>10% vs. ≤10%) | 1.01 (0.40 – 2.58) | 0.984 | - | - |
| Estrogen receptor positivity (Yes vs. No) | 1.17 (0.45 – 3.06) | 0.746 | - | - |
| Tumor laterality (Unilateral vs. Bilateral) | 1.23 (0.47 – 3.25) | 0.675 | - | - |
| Parity (≥3 vs. ≤2) | 0.85 (0.33 – 2.21) | 0.740 | - | - |
| Inhibin positivity (Yes vs. No) | 0.77 (0.27 – 2.23) | 0.620 | - | - |
| Comorbidity (Yes vs. No) | 1.11 (0.43 – 2.86) | 0.820 | - | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).