-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Preoperative staging of ovarian cancer: comparison between ultrasound, CT and whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI (ISAAC study)
D. Fischerova, P. Pinto, A. Burgetova, M. Masek, J. Slama, R. Kocian, F. Frühauf, M. Zikan, L. Dusek, P. Dundr, D. Cibula
Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
Grantová podpora
NV19-03-00552
Czech Research Council
PubMed
33871110
DOI
10.1002/uog.23654
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- celotělové zobrazování statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- difuzní magnetická rezonance statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- epiteliální ovariální karcinom diagnostické zobrazování patologie MeSH
- invazivní růst nádoru MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- lymfatické uzliny patologie MeSH
- magnetická rezonanční tomografie statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- nádory vaječníků diagnostické zobrazování patologie MeSH
- peritoneální nádory diagnostické zobrazování patologie MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound with that of the first-line staging method (contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT)) and a novel technique, whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted sequence (WB-DWI/MRI), in the assessment of peritoneal involvement (carcinomatosis), lymph-node staging and prediction of non-resectability in patients with suspected ovarian cancer. METHODS: Between March 2016 and October 2017, all consecutive patients with suspicion of ovarian cancer and surgery planned at a gynecological oncology center underwent preoperative staging and prediction of non-resectability with ultrasound, CT and WB-DWI/MRI. The evaluation followed a single, predefined protocol, assessing peritoneal spread at 19 sites and lymph-node metastasis at eight sites. The prediction of non-resectability was based on abdominal markers. Findings were compared to the reference standard (surgical findings and outcome and histopathological evaluation). RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients with confirmed ovarian cancer were analyzed. Among them, 51 (76%) had advanced-stage and 16 (24%) had early-stage ovarian cancer. Diagnostic laparoscopy only was performed in 16% (11/67) of the cases and laparotomy in 84% (56/67), with no residual disease at the end of surgery in 68% (38/56), residual disease ≤ 1 cm in 16% (9/56) and residual disease > 1 cm in 16% (9/56). Ultrasound and WB-DWI/MRI performed better than did CT in the assessment of overall peritoneal carcinomatosis (area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC), 0.87, 0.86 and 0.77, respectively). Ultrasound was not inferior to CT (P = 0.002). For assessment of retroperitoneal lymph-node staging (AUC, 0.72-0.76) and prediction of non-resectability in the abdomen (AUC, 0.74-0.80), all three methods performed similarly. In general, ultrasound had higher or identical specificity to WB-DWI/MRI and CT at each of the 19 peritoneal sites evaluated, but lower or equal sensitivity in the abdomen. Compared with WB-DWI/MRI and CT, transvaginal ultrasound had higher accuracy (94% vs 91% and 85%, respectively) and sensitivity (94% vs 91% and 89%, respectively) in the detection of carcinomatosis in the pelvis. Better accuracy and sensitivity of ultrasound (93% and 100%) than WB-DWI/MRI (83% and 75%) and CT (84% and 88%) in the evaluation of deep rectosigmoid wall infiltration, in particular, supports the potential role of ultrasound in planning rectosigmoid resection. In contrast, for the bowel serosal and mesenterial assessment, abdominal ultrasound had the lowest accuracy (70%, 78% and 79%, respectively) and sensitivity (42%, 65% and 65%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective study to document that, in experienced hands, ultrasound may be an alternative to WB-DWI/MRI and CT in ovarian cancer staging, including peritoneal and lymph-node evaluation and prediction of non-resectability based on abdominal markers of non-resectability. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Bulovka Hospital Prague Czech Republic
Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic Prague Czech Republic
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc22011230
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20220506130557.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 220425s2022 xxk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1002/uog.23654 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)33871110
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxk
- 100 1_
- $a Fischerova, D $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000272243218 $7 xx0074804
- 245 10
- $a Preoperative staging of ovarian cancer: comparison between ultrasound, CT and whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI (ISAAC study) / $c D. Fischerova, P. Pinto, A. Burgetova, M. Masek, J. Slama, R. Kocian, F. Frühauf, M. Zikan, L. Dusek, P. Dundr, D. Cibula
- 520 9_
- $a OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound with that of the first-line staging method (contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT)) and a novel technique, whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted sequence (WB-DWI/MRI), in the assessment of peritoneal involvement (carcinomatosis), lymph-node staging and prediction of non-resectability in patients with suspected ovarian cancer. METHODS: Between March 2016 and October 2017, all consecutive patients with suspicion of ovarian cancer and surgery planned at a gynecological oncology center underwent preoperative staging and prediction of non-resectability with ultrasound, CT and WB-DWI/MRI. The evaluation followed a single, predefined protocol, assessing peritoneal spread at 19 sites and lymph-node metastasis at eight sites. The prediction of non-resectability was based on abdominal markers. Findings were compared to the reference standard (surgical findings and outcome and histopathological evaluation). RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients with confirmed ovarian cancer were analyzed. Among them, 51 (76%) had advanced-stage and 16 (24%) had early-stage ovarian cancer. Diagnostic laparoscopy only was performed in 16% (11/67) of the cases and laparotomy in 84% (56/67), with no residual disease at the end of surgery in 68% (38/56), residual disease ≤ 1 cm in 16% (9/56) and residual disease > 1 cm in 16% (9/56). Ultrasound and WB-DWI/MRI performed better than did CT in the assessment of overall peritoneal carcinomatosis (area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC), 0.87, 0.86 and 0.77, respectively). Ultrasound was not inferior to CT (P = 0.002). For assessment of retroperitoneal lymph-node staging (AUC, 0.72-0.76) and prediction of non-resectability in the abdomen (AUC, 0.74-0.80), all three methods performed similarly. In general, ultrasound had higher or identical specificity to WB-DWI/MRI and CT at each of the 19 peritoneal sites evaluated, but lower or equal sensitivity in the abdomen. Compared with WB-DWI/MRI and CT, transvaginal ultrasound had higher accuracy (94% vs 91% and 85%, respectively) and sensitivity (94% vs 91% and 89%, respectively) in the detection of carcinomatosis in the pelvis. Better accuracy and sensitivity of ultrasound (93% and 100%) than WB-DWI/MRI (83% and 75%) and CT (84% and 88%) in the evaluation of deep rectosigmoid wall infiltration, in particular, supports the potential role of ultrasound in planning rectosigmoid resection. In contrast, for the bowel serosal and mesenterial assessment, abdominal ultrasound had the lowest accuracy (70%, 78% and 79%, respectively) and sensitivity (42%, 65% and 65%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective study to document that, in experienced hands, ultrasound may be an alternative to WB-DWI/MRI and CT in ovarian cancer staging, including peritoneal and lymph-node evaluation and prediction of non-resectability based on abdominal markers of non-resectability. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a epiteliální ovariální karcinom $x diagnostické zobrazování $x patologie $7 D000077216
- 650 _2
- $a difuzní magnetická rezonance $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D038524
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a lymfatické uzliny $x patologie $7 D008198
- 650 _2
- $a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D008279
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a invazivní růst nádoru $7 D009361
- 650 _2
- $a nádory vaječníků $x diagnostické zobrazování $x patologie $7 D010051
- 650 _2
- $a peritoneální nádory $x diagnostické zobrazování $x patologie $7 D010534
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a celotělové zobrazování $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D051598
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Pinto, P $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternidade Alfredo da Costa, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Lisbon, Portugal $u First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000264598529
- 700 1_
- $a Burgetova, A $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000299752338 $7 xx0163957
- 700 1_
- $a Masek, M $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Slama, J $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000338271204 $7 xx0105772
- 700 1_
- $a Kocian, R $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000258964158
- 700 1_
- $a Frühauf, F $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000241611890 $7 xx0207709
- 700 1_
- $a Zikan, M $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bulovka Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000152668895 $7 xx0096708
- 700 1_
- $a Dusek, L $u Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000285894378 $7 mzk2003181727
- 700 1_
- $a Dundr, P $u Department of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000289406124 $7 xx0080436
- 700 1_
- $a Cibula, D $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000163879356 $7 jo20000074072
- 773 0_
- $w MED00010717 $t Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology $x 1469-0705 $g Roč. 59, č. 2 (2022), s. 248-262
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33871110 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20220425 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20220506130549 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1789034 $s 1162428
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2022 $b 59 $c 2 $d 248-262 $e - $i 1469-0705 $m Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology $n Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol $x MED00010717
- GRA __
- $a NV19-03-00552 $p Czech Research Council
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20220425