PREDICTION OF SUBOPTIMAL CYTOREDUCTION IN ADVANCED OVARIAN CANCER
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29296/25877305-2021-01-05
Issue:
1
Year:
2021
Epithelial ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of death in women in developed countries.
The 5-year survival rate is 92% for a localized process and 29% for patients with advanced disease with
peritoneal metastases. The standard treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer is primary cytoreduction
followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. When it is impossible, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is performed.
Purpose of the study. Comparative evaluation of MRI and MSCT in identifying peritoneal distant spread in OC
with determination of the most informative method for predicting suboptimal cytoreduction. Materials and
methods. The study is based on the analysis of visual diagnostic results and surgical treatment of 46 women
with OC. Before primary cytoreduction, all patients underwent mp-MRI (22) and MSCT (27). The local
distribution and the presence of secondary spread were evaluated. For each method the diagnostic information
for predicting suboptimal cytoreduction were analyzed and ROC AUC analysis was performed. Results. In 15.2%
(7) of cases, stage IIIa / b was established, in 52.2% (24) – IIIc and in 32.6% (15) – IV stage of the
disease (FIGO). High grade serous carcinoma was observed in 91.3% (42), and low grade – in 8.7% (4). The
sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in determining secondary spread for MSCT were 0.65, 0.96, and 0.85,
for MRI – 0.85, 0.89 and 0.87. The positive and negative predictive value of MSCT is 0.91 and 0.79, MRI is
0.91 and 0.87. Complete cytoreduction was performed in 34 (73.9%) cases, optimal – in 7 (15.2%), non-optimal
– in 5 (10.9%) cases (including 2 with vital indications). The area under curve for MRI in predicting
suboptimal cytoreduction by the sum of points ranged from 0.81 (according to ESMO / ESGO criteria) to 0.85.
The ROC AUC based on the naive Bayesian classifier model was 0.88, which reflects the advantage of the
weighted estimate of predictors based on their significance over the score Conclusions. MRI is superior to
MSCT in the diagnostic informativeness of determining secondary spread of ovarian cancer. MRI has higher
sensitivity for determining tumor metastases at the level of the most significant localizations from the
point of view of cytoreductive intervention according to ESMO / ESGO data. The scale for assessing the
respectability on the diagnostic criteria developed was superior to the approach based on the ESMO / ESGO
criteria in its predictive accuracy.
Keywords:
gynecology
oncology
ovarian cancer
suboptimal cytoreduction
References:
- Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69 (1): 7–34. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21551
- Castellani F., Nganga E.C., Dumas L. et al. Imaging in the pre-operative staging of ovarian cancer. Abdom Radiol. 2019; 44 (2): 685–96. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-018-1779-6
- American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2018. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2018..
- van’t Sant I. et al. Diagnostic performance of imaging for the detection of peritoneal metastases: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30 (6): 3101–12. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06524-x
- Mikuła-Pietrasik J., Uruski P., Tykarski A. et al. 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
- Vergote I., Leunen K., Amant F. Primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer: what is the value of comparing apples with oranges? Gynecologic Oncology. 2012; 124 (1): 1–2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.010
- Manning-Geist B.L. 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
- Colombo N. et al. ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: Pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Ann Oncol. 2019; 30 (5): 672–705. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz062
- Sisovska I. et al. Current FIGO staging classification for cancer of ovary, fallopian tube and peritoneum. Ces Gynekol. 2017; 82 (3): 230–6.
- Forstner R., Sala E., Kinkel K. et al. ESUR guidelines: ovarian cancer staging and follow-up. Eur Radiol. 2010; 20 (1): 2773–80. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1886-4
- Javadi S., Ganeshan D.M., Qayyum A. et al. 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
- Gadelhak B. et al. 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. 2019; 44 (6): 2254–61. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-01939-y
- 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
- Rizzo S. et al. Pre-operative evaluation of epithelial ovarian cancer patients: Role of whole body diffusion weighted imaging MR and CT scans in the selection of patients suitable for primary debulking surgery. A single-centre study. Eur J Radiol. 2020; 123:108786. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108786
- Coakley F.V. et al. Peritoneal Metastases: Detection with Spiral CT in Patients with Ovarian Cancer. Radiology. 2002; 223 (2): 495–9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2232011081
- Low R.N., Barone R.M., Lacey C. et al. Peritoneal tumor: MR imaging with dilute oral barium and intravenous gadolinium-containing contrast agents compared with unenhanced MR imaging and CT. Radiology. 1997; 204 (2): 513–20. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.204.2.9240546
- Koh J.-L., Yan T.D., Glenn D. et al. Evaluation of preoperative computed tomography in estimating peritoneal cancer index in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16 (2): 327–33. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-008-0234-2