• Something wrong with this record ?

Prediction of nonresectability using the updated Predictive Index value model assessed by imaging and surgery in tubo-ovarian cancer: a prospective multicenter ISAAC study

F. Moro, P. Pinto, V. Chiappa, AC. Testa, JL. Alcázar, D. Franchi, K. Benesova, J. Jarkovsky, F. Frühauf, M. Borčinová, A. Burgetova, M. Masek, L. Lambert, D. Altmanova, G. Avesani, C. Panico, S. Alessi, P. Pricolo, J. Vara García, S. Palladino,...

. 2024 ; 231 (6) : 632.e1-632.e14. [pub] 20240703

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Observational Study

BACKGROUND: A laparoscopy-based scoring system was developed by Fagotti et al (Fagotti or Predictive Index value (PIV)score) based on the intraoperative presence or absence of carcinomatosis on predefined sites. Later, the authors updated the PIV score calculated only in the absence of one or both absolute criteria of nonresectability (mesenteric retraction and miliary carcinomatosis of the small bowel) (updated PIV model). OBJECTIVE: The aim was to demonstrate the noninferiority of ultrasound to other imaging methods (contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) and whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DWI)/MRI) in predicting nonresectable tumor (defined as residual disease >1 cm) using the updated PIV model in patients with tubo-ovarian cancer. The agreement between imaging and intraoperative findings as a reference was also calculated. STUDY DESIGN: This was a European prospective multicenter observational study. We included patients with suspected tubo-ovarian carcinoma who underwent preoperative staging and prediction of nonresectability at ultrasound, CT, WB-DWI/MRI, and surgical exploration. Ultrasound and CT were mandatory index tests, while WB-DWI/MRI was an optional test (non-available in all centers). The predictors of nonresectability were suspicious mesenteric retraction and/or miliary carcinomatosis of the small bowel or if absent, a PIV >8 (updated PIV model). The PIV score ranges from 0 to 12 according to the presence of disease in 6 predefined intra-abdominal sites (great omentum, liver surface, lesser omentum/stomach/spleen, parietal peritoneum, diaphragms, bowel serosa/mesentery). The reference standard was surgical outcome, in terms of residual disease >1 cm, assessed by laparoscopy and/or laparotomy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess the performance of the methods in predicting nonresectability was reported. Concordance between index tests at the detection of disease at 6 predefined sites and intraoperative exploration as reference standard was also calculated using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The study was between 2018 and 2022 in 5 European gynecological oncology centers. Data from 242 patients having both mandatory index tests (ultrasound and CT) were analyzed. 145/242 (59.9%) patients had no macroscopic residual tumor after surgery (R0) (5/145 laparoscopy and 140/145 laparotomy) and 17/242 (7.0%) had residual tumor ≤1 cm (R1) (laparotomy). In 80/242 patients (33.1%), the residual tumor was>1 cm (R2), 30 of them underwent laparotomy and maximum surgery was carried out, and 50/80 underwent laparoscopy only, because cytoreduction was not feasible in all of them. After excluding 18/242 (7.4%) patients operated on but not eligible for extensive surgery, the predictive performance of 3 imaging methods was analyzed in 167 women. The AUCs of all methods in discriminating between resectable and nonresectable tumor was 0.80 for ultrasound, 0.76 for CT, 0.71 for WB-DWI/MRI, and 0.90 for surgical exploration. Ultrasound had the highest agreement (Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.59 to 0.79) than CT and WB-DWI/MRI to assess all parameters included in the updated PIV model. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound showed noninferiority to CT and to WB-DWI/MRI in discriminating between resectable and nonresectable tumor using the updated PIV model. Ultrasound had the best agreement between imaging and intraoperative findings in the assessment of parameters included in the updated PIV model. Ultrasound is an acceptable method to assess abdominal disease and predict nonresectability in patients with tubo-ovarian cancer in the hands of specially trained ultrasound examiners.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25003322
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250206104245.0
007      
ta
008      
250121s2024 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.06.047 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38969200
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Moro, Francesca $u Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Rome, Italy
245    10
$a Prediction of nonresectability using the updated Predictive Index value model assessed by imaging and surgery in tubo-ovarian cancer: a prospective multicenter ISAAC study / $c F. Moro, P. Pinto, V. Chiappa, AC. Testa, JL. Alcázar, D. Franchi, K. Benesova, J. Jarkovsky, F. Frühauf, M. Borčinová, A. Burgetova, M. Masek, L. Lambert, D. Altmanova, G. Avesani, C. Panico, S. Alessi, P. Pricolo, J. Vara García, S. Palladino, R. Vigorito, G. Calareso, R. Kocian, J. Slama, AM. Vidal Urbinati, F. Raspagliesi, A. Fagotti, G. Scambia, D. Cibula, D. Fischerová
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: A laparoscopy-based scoring system was developed by Fagotti et al (Fagotti or Predictive Index value (PIV)score) based on the intraoperative presence or absence of carcinomatosis on predefined sites. Later, the authors updated the PIV score calculated only in the absence of one or both absolute criteria of nonresectability (mesenteric retraction and miliary carcinomatosis of the small bowel) (updated PIV model). OBJECTIVE: The aim was to demonstrate the noninferiority of ultrasound to other imaging methods (contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) and whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DWI)/MRI) in predicting nonresectable tumor (defined as residual disease >1 cm) using the updated PIV model in patients with tubo-ovarian cancer. The agreement between imaging and intraoperative findings as a reference was also calculated. STUDY DESIGN: This was a European prospective multicenter observational study. We included patients with suspected tubo-ovarian carcinoma who underwent preoperative staging and prediction of nonresectability at ultrasound, CT, WB-DWI/MRI, and surgical exploration. Ultrasound and CT were mandatory index tests, while WB-DWI/MRI was an optional test (non-available in all centers). The predictors of nonresectability were suspicious mesenteric retraction and/or miliary carcinomatosis of the small bowel or if absent, a PIV >8 (updated PIV model). The PIV score ranges from 0 to 12 according to the presence of disease in 6 predefined intra-abdominal sites (great omentum, liver surface, lesser omentum/stomach/spleen, parietal peritoneum, diaphragms, bowel serosa/mesentery). The reference standard was surgical outcome, in terms of residual disease >1 cm, assessed by laparoscopy and/or laparotomy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess the performance of the methods in predicting nonresectability was reported. Concordance between index tests at the detection of disease at 6 predefined sites and intraoperative exploration as reference standard was also calculated using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The study was between 2018 and 2022 in 5 European gynecological oncology centers. Data from 242 patients having both mandatory index tests (ultrasound and CT) were analyzed. 145/242 (59.9%) patients had no macroscopic residual tumor after surgery (R0) (5/145 laparoscopy and 140/145 laparotomy) and 17/242 (7.0%) had residual tumor ≤1 cm (R1) (laparotomy). In 80/242 patients (33.1%), the residual tumor was>1 cm (R2), 30 of them underwent laparotomy and maximum surgery was carried out, and 50/80 underwent laparoscopy only, because cytoreduction was not feasible in all of them. After excluding 18/242 (7.4%) patients operated on but not eligible for extensive surgery, the predictive performance of 3 imaging methods was analyzed in 167 women. The AUCs of all methods in discriminating between resectable and nonresectable tumor was 0.80 for ultrasound, 0.76 for CT, 0.71 for WB-DWI/MRI, and 0.90 for surgical exploration. Ultrasound had the highest agreement (Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.59 to 0.79) than CT and WB-DWI/MRI to assess all parameters included in the updated PIV model. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound showed noninferiority to CT and to WB-DWI/MRI in discriminating between resectable and nonresectable tumor using the updated PIV model. Ultrasound had the best agreement between imaging and intraoperative findings in the assessment of parameters included in the updated PIV model. Ultrasound is an acceptable method to assess abdominal disease and predict nonresectability in patients with tubo-ovarian cancer in the hands of specially trained ultrasound examiners.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    12
$a nádory vaječníků $x diagnostické zobrazování $x chirurgie $x patologie $7 D010051
650    12
$a počítačová rentgenová tomografie $7 D014057
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    12
$a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
650    _2
$a difuzní magnetická rezonance $x metody $7 D038524
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a ultrasonografie $7 D014463
650    _2
$a reziduální nádor $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D018365
650    _2
$a staging nádorů $7 D009367
650    _2
$a laparoskopie $x metody $7 D010535
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a pozorovací studie $7 D064888
700    1_
$a Pinto, Patrícia $u Department of Gynecology, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Lisbon Francisco Gentil, Lisbon, Portugal; First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Chiappa, Valentina $u Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Testa, Antonia Carla $u Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Alcázar, Juan Luis $u QuironSalud Hospital, Málaga, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cancer Center Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
700    1_
$a Franchi, Dorella $u Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Benesova, Klára $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jarkovsky, Jiri $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Frühauf, Filip $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Borčinová, Martina $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Burgetova, Andrea $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Masek, Martin $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Lambert, Lukas $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Altmanova, Dagmar $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Avesani, Giacomo $u Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Panico, Camilla $u Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Alessi, Sarah $u Division of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Pricolo, Paola $u Division of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Vara García, Julio $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cancer Center Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
700    1_
$a Palladino, Simona $u Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Vigorito, Raffaella $u Department of Radiology, IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Calareso, Giuseppina $u Department of Radiology, IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Kocian, Roman $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Slama, Jiri $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Vidal Urbinati, Ailyn Mariela $u Preventive Gynecology Unit, Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Raspagliesi, Francesco $u Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Fagotti, Anna $u Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Scambia, Giovanni $u Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Cibula, David $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Fischerová, Daniela $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: Daniela.Fischerova@vfn.cz
773    0_
$w MED00000270 $t American journal of obstetrics and gynecology $x 1097-6868 $g Roč. 231, č. 6 (2024), s. 632.e1-632.e14
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38969200 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250121 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250206104241 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2263218 $s 1239329
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 231 $c 6 $d 632.e1-632.e14 $e 20240703 $i 1097-6868 $m American journal of obstetrics and gynecology $n Am J Obstet Gynecol $x MED00000270
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250121

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...