The rational preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors – imaging techniques and tumor biomarkers (review)

Czech version

Authors: D. Fischerová ¹; Michal Zikán ¹ ; I. Pinkavová ¹; S. Sláma ¹; F. Frühauf ¹; P. Freitag ¹; P. Dundr ²; Andrea Burgetová ³ ; D. Cibula ¹
Authors‘ workplace: Onkogynekologické centrum, Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika Všeobecné fakultní nemocnice a 1. lékařské fakulty Univerzity Karlovy, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. A. Martan, DrSc. ¹; Ústav patologie Všeobecné fakultní nemocnice a 1. lékařské fakulty Univerzity Karlovy, Praha, prof. MUDr. C. Povýšil, DrSc. ²; Radiodiagnostická klinika Všeobecné fakultní nemocnice a 1. lékařské fakulty Univerzity Karlovy, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. J. Daneš, CSc. ³
Published in: Ceska Gynekol 2012; 77(4): 272-287

Overview

The majority of patients who suffer from an early-stage or advanced-stage of ovarian cancer complain about symptoms, mainly gastrointestinal ones. The pelvic examination in ovarian cancer detection is limited by the adnexal position in the pelvis and frequent extraovarian spread of disease. Recently, any reliable tumor biomarker (CA 125 and/or HE4), which can be used in diffential diagnosis between benign and malignant ovarian tumors, does not exist. According the results of the largest multicenter International Ovarian Trial Analysis (IOTA), ultrasound if performed by an experienced sonologist is an ideal diagnostic method in diferential diagnosis between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The experienced examiner is also able to detect extraovarian tumor spread and to assess tumor operability. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used only to complement ultrasound in cases when high tissue resolution is needed. Computed tomography (CT) is a useful method for detection of extraovarian spread, especially in cases when an ultrasound examiner experienced in abdominal scanning is not available. Similarly, fusion of positron emission tomography with CT (PET/CT) is a highly accurate method for the detection of abdominal and extraabdominal tumor spread, but its use is limited by cost and the low availability of this method. On the other hand, PET/CT is not recommended for primary ovarian cancer detection because of its lower sensitivity in comparison to ultrasound and its high false positive rates as well.

Key words:
ovarian cancer, ultrasound, RMI, CT, PET, IOTA, RMI, pelvic examination, symptom, CA 125.

Sources

1. Alcazar, JL., Jurado, M. Three-dimensional ultrasound for assessing women with gynecological cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol, 2011, 120, 3, p. 340–346.

2. Andersen, MR., Goff, BA., Lowe, KA., et al. Combining a symptoms index with CA125 to improve detection of ovarian cancer. Cancer, 2008, 113, 3, p. 484–489.

3. Axtell, AE., Lee, MH., Bristow, RE., et al. Multi-institutional reciprocal validation study of computed tomography predictors of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2007, 25, 4, p. 384–389.

4. Bast, RC., Jr., Klug, TL., St John, E., et al. A radioimmunoassay using a monoclonal antibody to monitor the course of epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med, 1983, 309, 15, p. 883–887.

5. Bazot, M., Darai, E., Nassar-Slaba, J., et al. Value of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of ovarian tumors: a review. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2008, 32, 5, p. 712–723.

6. Berrington de Gonzalez, A., Mahesh, M., Kim, KP., et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med, 2009, 169, 22, p. 2071–2077.

7. Bristow, RE., Tomacruz, RS., Armstrong, DK., et al. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol, 2002, 20, 5, p. 1248–1259.

8. Buys, SS., Partridge, E., Black, A., et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the prostate, lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA, 2011, 305, 22, p. 2295–2303.

9. Calda, P., Břešták, M., Fischerová, D. Ultrazvukové vyšetření v porodnictví a gynekologii: třístupňová koncepce a certifikace. Actual Gyn, 2012, 4, s. 22–30.

10. du Bois, A., Ewald-Riegler, N., du Bois, N., Harter, P. Borderline tumors of the ovary – a systematic review. Geburtsh Frauenheilk, 2009, 69, p. 807–833.

11. du Bois, A., Reuss, A., Pujade-Lauraine, E., et al. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l’Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer, 2009, 115, 6, p. 1234–1244.

12. du Bois, A., Rochon, J., Pfisterer, J., Hoskins, WJ. Variations in institutional infrastructure, physician specialization and experience, and outcome in ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol, 2009, 112, 2, p. 422–436.

13. Fischerova, D., Cibula, D., Dundr, P., et al. Ultrasound-guided tru-cut biopsy in the management of advanced abdomino-pelvic tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2008, 18, 4, p. 833–837.

14. Fischerova, D. Ultrazvukové zobrazení benigních a maligních ovariálních nádorů. In Ultrazvuková diagnostika v těhotenství a gynekologii, Calda, P. ed. Praha: Aprofema, 2010, s. 457–476.

15. Fischerova, D., Franchi, D., Testa, A., et al. Ultrasound in diagnosis of new and borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 36, Suppl.1, Abstract OC01.03, p. 1.

16. Fischerova, D. Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecological tumors: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 38, 3, p. 246–266.

17. Fischerová, D., Burgetová, A., Seidl, Z., Bělohlávek, O. Diagnostika. In Onkogynekologie, Cibula, D., Petruželka, L. ed. Praha: Grada Publishing, 2009, p. 105.

18. Fischerová, D. Pánevní anatomie v ultrazvukovém obraze, In Ultrazvuková diagnostika v těhotenství a gynekologii, Calda, P. ed. Praha: Aprofema, 2010, s. 380–401.

19. Forstner, R., Hricak, H., Occhipinti, KA., et al. Ovarian cancer: staging with CT and MR imaging. Radiology, 1995, 197, 3, p. 619–626.

20. Geomini, P., Kruitwagen, R., Bremer, GL., et al. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 113, 2 Pt 1, p. 384–394.

21. Givens, V., Mitchell, GE., Harraway-Smith, C., et al. Diagnosis and management of adnexal masses. Am Fam Physician, 2009, 80, 8, p. 815–820.

22. Goff, BA., Mandel, LS., Melancon, CH., Muntz, HG. Frequency of symptoms of ovarian cancer in women presenting to primary care clinics. JAMA, 2004, 291, 22, p. 2705–2712.

23. Goff, BA., Mandel, L.S., Drescher, CW., et al. Development of an ovarian cancer symptom index: possibilities for earlier detection. Cancer, 2007, 109, 2, p. 221–227.

24. Grab, D., Flock, F., Stohr, I., et al. Classification of asymptomatic adnexal masses by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Gynecol Oncol, 2000, 77, 3, p. 454–459.

25. Gu, P., Pan, LL., Wu, SQ., et al. CA125, PET alone, PET-CT, CT and MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol, 2009, 71, 1, p. 164–174.

26. Guerriero, S., Alcazar, JL. The role of ovarian cancer symptom index, physical examination and power Doppler mapping for predicting ovarian cancer in suspicious adnexal masses on B-mode ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 34, Supp.1.

27. Iyer, VR., Lee, SI. MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2010, 194, 2, p. 311–321.

28. Jacob, F., Meier, M., Caduff, R., et al. No benefit from combining HE4 and CA125 as ovarian tumor markers in a clinical setting. Gynecol Oncol, 2011, 121, 3, p. 487–491.

29. Jacobs, I., Oram, D., Fairbanks, J., et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1990, 97, 10, p. 922–929.

30. Jaeschke, R., Guyatt, G., Sackett, DL. Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA, 1994, 271, 5, p. 389–391.

31. Jung, DC., Choi, HJ., Ju, W., et al. Discordant MRI/FDG-PET imaging for the diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2008, 18, 4, p. 637–641.

32. Maggino, T., Gadducci, A., D’Addario, V., et al. Prospective multicenter study on CA125 in postmenopausal pelvic masses. Gynecol Oncol, 1994, 54, 2, p. 117–123.

33. Moore, RG., Brown, AK., Miller, MC., et al. The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol, 2008, 108, 2, p. 402–408.

34. Moore, RG., McMeekin, DS., Brown, AK., et al. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol, 2009, 112, 1, p. 40–46.

35. Padilla, LA., Radosevich, DM., Milad, MP. Limitations of the pelvic examination for evaluation of the female pelvic organs. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2005, 88, 1, p. 84–88.

36. Redman, C., Duffy, S., Bromham, N., Francis, K. Recognition and initial management of ovarian cancer: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ, 2011, 342, 2073.

37. Rieber, A., Nussle, K., Stohr, I., et al. Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors with MR imaging: comparison with transvaginal sonography, positron emission tomography, and histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2001, 177, 1, p. 123–129.

38. Risum, S., Hogdall, C., Loft, A., et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancor – a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol, 2007, 105, 1, p. 145–149.

39. Rustin, GJ., van der Burg, ME., Griffin, CL., et al. Early versus delayed treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer (MRC OV05/EORTC 55955): a randomised trial. Lancet, 2010, 376, 9747, p. 1155–1163.

40. Schummer, M., Ng, WV., Bumgarner, RE., et al. Comparative hybridization of an array of 21,500 ovarian cDNAs for the discovery of genes overexpressed in ovarian carcinomas. Gene, 1999, 238, 2, p. 375–385.

41. Tempany, CM., Zou, KH., Silverman, SG., et al. Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities – report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology, 2000, 215, 3, p. 761–767.

42. Testa, AC., Timmerman, D., Exacoustos, C., et al. The role of CnTI-SonoVue in the diagnosis of ovarian masses with papillary projections: a preliminary study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2007, 29, 5, p. 512–516.

43. Testa, AC., Timmerman, D., Van Belle, V., et al. Intravenous contrast ultrasound examination using contrast-tuned imaging (CnTI) and the contrast medium SonoVue for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses with solid components. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 34, 6, p. 699–710.

44. Testa, AC., Ludovisi, M., Mascilini, F., et al. Ultrasound evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of disease to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 39, 1, p. 99–105.

45. Timmerman, D., Schwarzler, P., Collins, WP., et al. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1999, 13, 1, p. 11–16.

46. Timmerman, D., Valentin, L., Bourne, TH., et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2000, 16, 5, p. 500–505.

47. Timmerman, D., Testa, AC., Bourne, T., et al. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol, 2005, 23, 34, p. 8794–8801.

48. Timmerman, D., Van Calster, B., Jurkovic, D., et al. Inclusion of CA-125 does not improve mathematical models developed to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal tumors. J Clin Oncol, 2007, 25, 27, p. 4194–4200.

49. Timmerman, D., Testa, AC., Bourne, T., et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2008, 31, 6, p. 681–690.

50. Timmerman, D., Ameye, L., Fischerova, D., et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ, 2010, 341, c6839.

51. Timmerman, D., Van Calster, B., Testa, AC., et al. Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 36, 2, p. 226–234.

52. Tingulstad, S., Hagen, B., Skjeldestad, FE., et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1996, 103, 8, p. 826–831.

53. Tingulstad, S., Hagen, B., Skjeldestad, FE., et al. The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol, 1999, 93, 3, p. 448–452.

54. Togashi, K. Ovarian cancer: the clinical role of US, CT, and MRI. Eur Radiol, 2003, 13. Suppl 4, L87–104.

55. Valentin, L. Prospective cross-validation of Doppler ultrasound examination and gray-scale ultrasound imaging for discrimination of benign and malignant pelvic masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1999, 14, 4, p. 273–283.

56. Valentin, L., Hagen, B., Tingulstad, S., Eik-Nes, S. Comparison of ‘pattern recognition’ and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2001, 18, 4, p. 357–365.

57. Valentin, L., Ameye, L., Jurkovic, D., et al. Which extrauterine pelvic masses are difficult to correctly classify as benign or malignant on the basis of ultrasound findings and is there a way of making a correct diagnosis? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2006, 27, 4, p. 438–444.

58. Valentin, L., Jurkovic, D., Van Calster, B., et al. Adding a single CA125 measurement to ultrasound imaging performed by an experienced examiner does not improve preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 34, 3, p. 345–354.

59. Valentin, L., Ameye, L., Savelli, L., et al. Adnexal masses difficult to classify as benign or malignant using subjective assessment of gray-scale and Doppler ultrasound findings: logistic regression models do not help. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 38, 4, p. 456–465.

60. Van Calster, B., Timmerman, D., Bourne, T., et al. Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2007, 99, 22, p. 1706–1714.

61. Van Calster, B., Valentin, L., Van Holsbeke, C., et al. A novel approach to predict the likelihood of specific ovarian tumor pathology based on serum CA-125: a multicenter observational study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2011, 20, 11, p. 2420–2428.

62. van der Zee, AG., Colombo, N., Gitsch, G., et al. ESGO statement on the role of CA-125 measurement in follow-up of epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2012, 22, 1, p. 175.

63. Van Gorp, T., Cadron, I., Despierre, E., et al. HE4 and CA125 as a diagnostic test in ovarian cancer: prospective validation of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Br J Cancer, 2011, 104, 5, p. 863–870.

64. Van Gorp, T., Veldman, J., Van Calster, B., et al. Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur J Cancer, 2012.

65. Van Holsbeke, C., Yazbek, J., Holland, TK., et al. Real-time ultrasound vs. evaluation of static images in the preoperative assessment of adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2008, 32, 6, p. 828–831.

66. Van Holsbeke, C., Daemen, A., Yazbek, J., et al. Ultrasound methods to distinguish between malignant and benign adnexal masses in the hands of examiners with different levels of experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 34, 4, p. 454–461.

67. Van Holsbeke, C., Daemen, A., Yazbek, J., et al. Ultrasound experience substantially impacts on diagnostic performance and confidence when adnexal masses are classified using pattern recognition. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 2010, 69, 3, p. 160–168.

68. Van Holsbeke, C., Van Calster, B., Bourne, T., et al. External validation of diagnostic models to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses. Clin Cancer Res, 2012, 18, 3, p. 815–825.

69. Vergote, I., De Brabanter, J., Fyles, A., et al. Prognostic importance of degree of differentiation and cyst rupture in stage I invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Lancet, 2001, 357, 9251, p. 176–182.

70. Verheijen, RH., Cibula, D., Zola, P., Reed, N. Cancer antigen 125: lost to follow-up?: An European society of gynaecological oncology consensus statement. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2012, 22, 1, p. 170–174.

71. Vernooij, F., Heintz, AP., Witteveen, PO., et al. Specialized care and survival of ovarian cancer patients in the Netherlands: nationwide cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2008, 100, 6, p. 399–406.

72. Yamamoto, Y., Yamada, R., Oguri, H., et al. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2009, 144, 2, p. 163–167.

73. Yazbek, J., Raju, SK., Ben-Nagi, J., et al. Effect of quality of gynaecological ultrasonography on management of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol, 2008, 9, 2, p. 124–131.

74. Yoshida, Y., Kurokawa, T., Tsujikawa, T., et al. Positron emission tomography in ovarian cancer: 18F-deoxy-glucose and 16alpha-18F-fluoro-17beta-estradiol PET. J Ovarian Res, 2009, 2, 1, p. 7.

75. Zanetta, G., Rota, S., Lissoni, A., et al. Ultrasound, physical examination, and CA125 measurement for the detection of recurrence after conservative surgery for early borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol, 2001, 81, 1, p. 63–66.

76. Zikan, M., Fischerova, D., Pinkavova, I., et al. Ultrasound-guided tru-cut biopsy of abdominal and pelvic tumors in gynecology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 36, 6, p. 767–772.