Can Presurgical Ultrasound Predict Survival in Women With Ovarian Masses?

Overview

Journal Ultrasound Q

Specialty Radiology

Date 2018 Dec 6

PMID 30516730

Authors

Ahmad Iyad Mubarak

Ajaykumar C Morani

Jessica Samuel

Jia Sun

Wei Wei

Priya R Bhosale

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the ability of ultrasound to predict survival and detect more aggressive tumors in women with ovarian masses.

Materials And Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained. A total of 167 patients who presented with adnexal mass/masses were included. These were documented as benign or malignant on ultrasound. Age, date of diagnosis and date of death, type of tumor, and tumor marker cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) values were recorded. A CA-125 value of less than 35 U/mL was considered normal. All cases underwent surgery. Pathologic findings were considered as reference standard. The 2 × 2 cross-tabulations were used to correlate dichotomized CA-125, US diagnosis (benign vs malignant), and pathologic status. Difference of distributions was tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, and their association was tested using the Fisher exact test. All tests were 2-sided, and P values of 0.05 or less were considered statistically significant. Kaplan-Meir curves were generated to estimate survival.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference in patients with benign versus malignant tumors based on pathology (P < 0.0001) and ultrasound (P < 0.0003). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of ultrasound were 55%, 86%, 90% and 46%, and 81%. Patients diagnosed as having malignant tumors based on ultrasound had statistically significant worse overall survival. Probability of survival based on pathologic diagnosis of malignancy was statistically significant at P < 0.0003; based on ultrasound, P < 0.0001; and based on CA-125, P < 0.041.

Conclusion: Patients who had ultrasound-based prediction of ovarian malignancy had overall worse survival probability (P < 0.0001) compared with CA-125- or pathology-based prediction.

References

Buys S, Partridge E, Black A, Johnson C, Lamerato L, Isaacs C . Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2011; 305(22):2295-303. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.766. View

Sladkevicius P, Valentin L, Marsal K . Transvaginal Doppler examination for the differential diagnosis of solid pelvic tumors. J Ultrasound Med. 1995; 14(5):377-80. DOI: 10.7863/jum.1995.14.5.377. View

Le T, Krepart G, Lotocki R, Heywood M . Does debulking surgery improve survival in biologically aggressive ovarian carcinoma?. Gynecol Oncol. 1997; 67(2):208-14. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1997.4839. View

Jiang Z, Li K, Tian J, Ren M . An overview of the development and application of the sonographic scoring system: differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 293(2):303-10. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-015-3957-x. View

Weber G, Merz E, Bahlmann F, Leber A . A new sonomorphologic scoring-system (Mainz score) for the assessment of ovarian tumors using transvaginal ultrasonography. Part II: A comparison between the scoring-system and the assessment by an experienced sonographer in postmenopausal women. Ultraschall Med. 1999; 20(1):2-8. DOI: 10.1055/s-1999-14224. View

Nunes N, Ambler G, Foo X, Naftalin J, Widschwendter M, Jurkovic D . Use of IOTA simple rules for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44(5):503-14. DOI: 10.1002/uog.13437. View

Li J, Li S, Chen R, Lu X . Increased risk of poor survival in ovarian cancer patients with high expression of SNAI2 and lymphovascular space invasion. Oncotarget. 2017; 8(6):9672-9685. PMC: 5354762. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.14192. View

Moore R, MacLaughlan S, Bast Jr R . Current state of biomarker development for clinical application in epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 116(2):240-5. PMC: 3134885. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.09.041. View

Aletti G, Dowdy S, Gostout B, Jones M, Stanhope C, Wilson T . Aggressive surgical effort and improved survival in advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107(1):77-85. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000192407.04428.bb. View

10.

Lerner J, Timor-Tritsch I, Federman A, Abramovich G . Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 170(1 Pt 1):81-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70388-4. View

11.

Timmerman D, Testa A, Bourne T, Ferrazzi E, Ameye L, Konstantinovic M . 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):8794-801. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.7632. View

12.

Skates S, Menon U, MacDonald N, Rosenthal A, Oram D, Knapp R . Calculation of the risk of ovarian cancer from serial CA-125 values for preclinical detection in postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(10 Suppl):206s-210s. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.955. View

13.

Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A . Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10(4):327-40. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70026-9. View

14.

Depriest P, Shenson D, Fried A, Hunter J, Andrews S, Gallion H . A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1993; 51(1):7-11. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1993.1238. View

15.

Chi D, Eisenhauer E, Zivanovic O, Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum N, Levine D . Improved progression-free and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer as a result of a change in surgical paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 114(1):26-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.018. View

16.

Alcazar J, Merce L, Laparte C, Jurado M, Lopez-Garcia G . A new scoring system to differentiate benign from malignant adnexal masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188(3):685-92. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.176. View

17.

Jacobs I, Bast Jr R . The CA 125 tumour-associated antigen: a review of the literature. Hum Reprod. 1989; 4(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136832. View

18.

Brown D, Doubilet P, Miller F, Frates M, Laing F, DiSalvo D . Benign and malignant ovarian masses: selection of the most discriminating gray-scale and Doppler sonographic features. Radiology. 1998; 208(1):103-10. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.208.1.9646799. View

19.

Buy J, Ghossain M, Hugol D, Hassen K, Sciot C, Truc J . Characterization of adnexal masses: combination of color Doppler and conventional sonography compared with spectral Doppler analysis alone and conventional sonography alone. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 166(2):385-93. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.166.2.8553953. View

20.

Jacobs I, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi J . Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 387(10022):945-956. PMC: 4779792. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6. View