Current imaging techniques for staging and assessing the resectability of advanced ovarian cancer


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The authors have carried out a systematic analysis of the information value of imaging techniques in staging and assessing the resectability of advanced ovarian cancer. They have analyzed works on this topic published in the Pubmed journals over the past 15 years. The extent of the process remains the most important prognostic factor of the disease. Surgical staging is leading in the treatment of ovarian cancer; nevertheless, diagnostic imaging techniques assume a key significance in determining patient management tactics and identifying unresectable tumors. The paper provides information on the most reproducible research procedures, interpretation of the findings, and choice of an optimal examination method. Despite the fact that multispiral computed tomography is the gold standard for examining women with advanced ovarian cancer, the functional methods used in MRI can potentially be crucial in staging and assessing the resectability of ovarian cancer when deciding to undergo primary optimal cytoreduction in the near future. Moreover, none of the proposed methods for predicting cytoreduction is generally accepted; there is no consensus on the most optimal procedure.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

E. M Syrkashev

Academician V.I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: e_syrkashev@oparina4.ru
M.D., Researcher of the Radiology Department

A. E Solopova

Academician V.I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: a_solopova@oparina4.ru
PhD in Medical sciences, Leading Researcher, Radiology Department

V. G Bychenko

Academician V.I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: v_bychenko@oparina4.ru
M.D., Ph.D., Head of Radiology Department

G. N Khabas

Academician V.I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: g_khabas@oparina4.ru
M.D., Ph.D., Head of Innovative Oncology and Gynecology Department

References

  1. Reid B.M., Permuth J.B., Sellers T.A. Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a review. Cancer Biol. Med. 2017; 14(1): 9-32. doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0084
  2. Solopova A.E., Dadak C., Makatsaria A.D., Kolesnikova O.G. Imaging modalities in ovarian cancerArole in patient management. Rus. Electron. J. Radiol. 2018; 8(3): 30-47. doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2018-8-3-30-47.
  3. Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В., ред. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2017 Году. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена - филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России; 2018. 236 с.
  4. Baerheim A, Sandvik H. Effect of ale, garlic, and soured cream on the appetite of leeches. BMJ. 1994; 309( 6970): 1689 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.309.6970.1689.
  5. Mikula-Pietrasik J., Uruski P., Tykarski A., Ksiqzek K. The peritoneal ‘soil’ for a cancerous ‘seed’: a comprehensive review of the pathogenesis of intraperitoneal cancer metastases. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2018; 75(3): 509-25. doi: 10.1007/s00018-017-2663-1.
  6. Javadi S., Ganeshan D.M., Qayyum A., Iyer R.B., Bhosale P. Ovarian cancer, the revised FIGO staging system, and the role of imaging. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2016; 206(6): 1351-60. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.15199
  7. Sankaranarayanan R., Ferlay J. Worldwide burden of gynaecological cancer: the size of the problem. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2006; 20(2): 20725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2005.10.007
  8. Seidman J.D., Yemelyanova A., Cosin J.A., Smith A., Kurman R.J. Survival rates for international federation of gynecology and obstetrics stage III ovarian carcinoma by cell type: a study of 262 unselected patients with uniform pathologic review. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2012; 22(3): 367-71. DOI: 10.1097/ IGC.0b013e31823c6f80
  9. Prat J., Olawaiye A.B., Bermudez A., Chen L.M. Ovary, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal carcinoma. In: Amin M.B., ed. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. Chicago: AJCC; 2017: 681-90. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40618-3_55
  10. Manning-Geist B.L., Hicks-Courant K., Gockley A.A., Clark R.M., Del Carmen M.G., Growdon W.B. et al. A novel classification of residual disease after interval debulking surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer to better distinguish oncologic outcome. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 221(4): 326. e1-326. e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.05.006
  11. Bogani G., Matteucci L., Tamberi S., Ditto A., Sabatucci I., Murgia F. et al. RECIST 1.1 criteria predict recurrence-free survival in advanced ovarian cancer submitted to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2019; 237: 93-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.04.007.
  12. Rybicki F.J., Glanc P. Patient-friendly summary of the ACR appropriateness criteria: staging and follow-up of ovarian cancer. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2019; 16(5): e23.
  13. Sureka B., Meena V., Garg P., Yadav T., Khera P.S. Computed tomography imaging of ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis: a pictorial review. Pol. J. Radiol. 2019; 83: 500-9.
  14. Woodward P.J., Hosseinzadeh K., Saenger J.S. From the archives of the AFIP: radiologic staging of ovarian carcinoma with pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2004; 24(1): 225-46. doi: 10.1148/rg.241035178
  15. Kyriazi S., Collins D.J., Morgan V.A., Giles S.L., de Souza N.M. Diffusion-weighted imaging of peritoneal disease for noninvasive staging of advanced ovarian cancer. Radiographics. 2010; 30(5): 1269-85. doi: 10.1148/ rg.305105073
  16. Agostinho L., Horta M., Salvador J.C., Cunha T.M. Benign ovarian lesions with restricted diffusion. Radiol. Bras. 2019; 52(2): 106-11. doi: 10.1590/0100-3984.2018.0078.
  17. Fischerova D., Burgetova A. Imaging techniques for the evaluation of ovarian cancer. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2014; 28(5): 697-720. doi: 10.1016/j. bpobgyn.2014.04.006.
  18. van de Vrie R., Rutten M.J., Asseler J.D., Leeflang M.M., Kenter G.G., Mol B.WJ., Buist M. Laparoscopy for diagnosing resectability of disease in women with advanced ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019; (3): CD009786. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009786.pub3
  19. Rutten M.J., van Meurs H.S., van de Vrie R., Gaarenstroom K.N., Naaktgeboren C.A., van Gorp T. et al. Laparoscopy to predict the result of primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017; 35(6): 613-21. DOI: 10.1200/ JCO.2016.69.2962
  20. Marmor R.A., Kelly K.J., Lowy A.M., Baumgartner J.M. Laparoscopy is safe and accurate to evaluate peritoneal surface metastasis prior to cytoreductive surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016; 23(5): 1461-7. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4958-5
  21. Andikyan V., Kim A., Gretz H.F. 3rd, Zakashansky K., Prasad-Hayes M., Beddoe A.M. et al. Laparoscopic assessment to determine the likelihood of achieving optimal cytoreduction in patients undergoing primary debulking surgery for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018; 41(10): 938-42. DOI:10.1097/ COC.0000000000000413
  22. Tempany C.M., Zou K.H., Silverman S.G., Brown D.L., Kurtz A.B., McNeil B.J. Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities--report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 2000; 215(3): 761-7. doi: 10.1148/radiology.215.3.r00jn25761
  23. Low R.N., Barone R.M., Lucero J. Comparison of MRI and CT for predicting the peritoneal cancer index (PCI) preoperatively in patients being considered for cytoreductive surgical procedures. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015; 22(5): 1708-15. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-4041-7.
  24. Gadelhak B., Tawfik A.M., Saleh G.A., Batouty N.M., Sobh D.M., Hamdy O., Refky B. Extended abdominopelvic MRI versus CT at the time of adnexal mass characterization for assessing radiologic peritoneal cancer index (PCI) prior to cytoreductive surgery. Abdom. Radiol. (NY). 2019; 44(6): 2254-61. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-01939-y
  25. Espada M., Garcia-Flores J.R., Jimenez M., Alvarez-Moreno E., De Haro M., Gonzalez-Cortijo L. et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of implants to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Eur. Radiol. 2013; 23(9): 2636-42.
  26. Glaser G., Torres M., Kim B., Aletti G., Weaver A., Mariani A. et al. The use of CT findings to predict extent of tumor at primary surgery for ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013; 130(2): 280-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.007.
  27. Nasser S., Lazaridis A., Evangelou M., Jones B., Nixon K., Kyrgiou M. et al. Correlation of preoperative CT findings with surgical & histological tumor dissemination patterns at cytoreduction for primary advanced and relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer: A retrospective evaluation. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016; 143(2): 264-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.08.322
  28. Forstner R., Sala E., Kinkel K., Spencer J.A. ESUR guidelines: ovarian cancer staging and follow-up. Eur. Radiol. 2010; 20(12): 2773-80. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00330-010-1886-4
  29. Kumar A., Sheedy S., Kim B., Suidan R., Sarasohn D.M., Nikolovski I. et al. Gynecologic oncology models to predict outcomes after primary debulking surgery : independent validation of models to predict suboptimal cytoreduction and gross residual disease. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019; 154(1): 72-6.
  30. Sugarbaker P.H., Jablonski K.A. Prognostic features of 51 colorectal and 130 appendiceal cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann. Surg. 2006; 221(2): 124-32. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199502000-00002
  31. Tentes A.A., Tripsiannis G., Markakidis S.K., Karanikiotis C.N., Tzegas G., Georgiadis G., Avgidou K. Peritoneal cancer index: a prognostic indicator of survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2003; 29(1): 69-73. doi: 10.1053/ejso.2002.1380
  32. Eisenkop S.M., Spirtos N.M., Friedman R.L., Lin W.C., Pisani A.L., Perticucci S. Relative influences of tumor volume before surgery and the cytoreductive outcome on survival for patients with advanced ovarian cancer : a prospective study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2003; 90(2): 390-6.
  33. Aletti G.D., Santillan A., Eisenhauer E.L., Hu J., Aletti G., Podratz K.C. et al. A new frontier for quality of care in gynecologic oncology surgery : Multiinstitutional assessment of short-term outcomes for ovarian cancer using a risk-adjusted model. Gynecol. Oncol. 2007; 107(1): 99-106. DOI: 10.1016/j. ygyno.2007.05.032
  34. Fagotti A., Ferrandina G., Fanfani F., Ercoli A., Lorusso D., Rossi M., Scambia G. A laparoscopy-based score to predict surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma : a pilot study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2006; 13(8): 1156-61. doi: 10.1245/ASO.2006.08.021
  35. Brun J.L., Rouzier R., Uzan S., Darai E. External validation of a laparoscopic-based score to evaluate resectability of advanced ovarian cancers: clues for a simplified score. Gynecol. Oncol. 2008; 110(3): 354-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ygyno.2008.04.042
  36. Petrillo M., Vizzielli G., Fanfani F., Gallotta V., Cosentino F., Chiantera V. et al. Definition of a dynamic laparoscopic model for the prediction of incomplete cytoreduction in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: proof of a concept. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 139(1): 5-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.07.095.
  37. Fagotti A., Ferrandina G., Fanfani F., Garganese G., Vizzielli G., Carone V. et al. Prospective validation of a laparoscopic predictive model for optimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian carcinoma. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008; 199(6): 642. e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.052.
  38. Fagotti A., Vizzielli G., Fanfani F., Costantini B., Ferrandina G., Gallotta V. et al. Introduction of staging laparoscopy in the management of advanced epithelial ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancer: impact on prognosis in a single institution experience. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013; 131(2): 341-6. doi: 10.1016/j. ygyno.2013.08.005.
  39. Dowdy S.C., Mullany S.A., Brandt K.R., Huppert B.J., Cliby W.A. The utility of computed tomography scans in predicting suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer. 2004; 101(2): 346-52. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20376
  40. Janco J.M., Glaser G., Kim B., McGree M.E., Weaver A.L., Cliby W.A. et al. Development of a prediction model for residual disease in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 138(1): 70-7. doi: 10.1016/j. ygyno.2015.04.013.
  41. Suidan R.S., Ramirez P.T., Sarasohn D.M., Teitcher J.B., Mironov S., Iyer R.B. et al. A multicenter prospective trial evaluating the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and serum CA-125 to predict suboptimal cytoreduction at primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014; 134(3): 455-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.079
  42. Suidan R.S., Ramirez P.T., Sarasohn D.M., Teitcher J.B., Iyer R.B., Zhou Q. et al. A multicenter assessment of the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and CA-125 to predict gross residual disease at primary debulking for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017; 145(1): 27-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.02.020

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2019 Bionika Media