A Prediction Nomogram for Suboptimal Debulking Surgery in Patients with Serous Ovarian Carcinoma Based on MRI T1 Dual-echo Imaging and Diffusion-weighted Imaging

Overview

Journal Insights Imaging

Publisher Springer

Specialty Radiology

Date 2022 Dec 27

PMID 36575303

Authors

Li Liu

Jie Wang

Yan Wu

Qiao Chen

Linyi Zhou

Hua Linghu

Yongmei Li

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Serous ovarian carcinoma (SOC) has the highest morbidity and mortality among ovarian carcinoma. Accurate identification of the probability of suboptimal debulking surgery (SDS) is critical. This study aimed to develop a preoperative prediction nomogram of SDS for patients with SOC.

Methods: A prediction model was established including 205 patients of SOC from institution A, and 45 patients from institution B were enrolled for external validation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to screen independent predictors and establish a nomogram to predict the occurrence of SDS.

Results: Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that the CA-125 level (odds ratio [OR] 8.260, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.003-43.372), relationship between the sigmoid colon/rectum and ovarian mass (OR 28.701, 95% CI 4.561-286.070), diaphragmatic metastasis (OR 12.369, 95% CI 1.675-274.063), and FIGO stage (OR 32.990, 95% CI 6.623-274.509) were independent predictors for SDS. The area under the curve, concordance index, and 95% CI of the nomogram constructed from the above four factors were 0.951, 0.934, and 0.919-0.982, respectively. The model showed a good fit by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (training set, p = 0.2475; internal validation set, p = 0.2355; external validation set, p = 0.2707). The external validation proved the reliability of the prediction nomogram. The calibration curve was close to the ideal diagonal line. The decision curve analysis demonstrated a significantly better net benefit. The clinical impact curve indicated good effectiveness in clinical application.

Conclusion: A prediction nomogram for SDS in patients with SOC provides gynecologists with an accurate and effective tool for appropriate management.

References

Shim S, Lee S, Kim S, Kim S, Kim D, Lee J . Nomogram for predicting incomplete cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 136(1):30-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.11.004. View

Pinto M, Balmaceda C, Bravo M, Kato S, Villarroel A, Owen G . Patient inflammatory status and CD4+/CD8+ intraepithelial tumor lymphocyte infiltration are predictors of outcomes in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2018; 151(1):10-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.07.025. View

Dowdy S, Mullany S, Brandt K, Huppert B, Cliby W . The utility of computed tomography scans in predicting suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer. 2004; 101(2):346-52. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20376. View

Chi D, Venkatraman E, Masson V, Hoskins W . The ability of preoperative serum CA-125 to predict optimal primary tumor cytoreduction in stage III epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 77(2):227-31. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.2000.5749. View

Chi D, Franklin C, Levine D, Akselrod F, Sabbatini P, Jarnagin W . Improved optimal cytoreduction rates for stages IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: a change in surgical approach. Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 94(3):650-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.01.029. View

Suidan R, Ramirez P, Sarasohn D, Teitcher J, Iyer R, Zhou Q . A multicenter assessment of the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and CA-125 to predict gross residual disease at primary debulking for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2017; 145(1):27-31. PMC: 5387995. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.02.020. View

Li H, Zhang R, Li R, Xia W, Chen X, Zhang J . Noninvasive prediction of residual disease for advanced high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma by MRI-based radiomic-clinical nomogram. Eur Radiol. 2021; 31(10):7855-7864. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07902-0. View

Cybulska P, Stewart J, Sayad A, Virtanen C, Shaw P, Clarke B . A Genomically Characterized Collection of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Xenografts for Preclinical Testing. Am J Pathol. 2018; 188(5):1120-1131. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2018.01.019. View

Michielsen K, Dresen R, Vanslembrouck R, De Keyzer F, Amant F, Mussen E . Diagnostic value of whole body diffusion-weighted MRI compared to computed tomography for pre-operative assessment of patients suspected for ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2017; 83:88-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.06.010. View

10.

Arab M, Jamdar F, Hosseini M, Ghodssi- Ghasemabadi R, Farzaneh F, Ashrafganjoei T . Model for Prediction of Optimal Debulking of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018; 19(5):1319-1324. PMC: 6031811. DOI: 10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.5.1319. View

11.

Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014; 64(1):9-29. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21208. View

12.

Wright A, Bohlke K, Armstrong D, Bookman M, Cliby W, Coleman R . Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer: Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. Gynecol Oncol. 2016; 143(1):3-15. PMC: 5413203. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.022. View

13.

Bristow R, Duska L, Lambrou N, Fishman E, ONeill M, Trimble E . A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Cancer. 2000; 89(7):1532-40. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(20001001)89:7<1532::aid-cncr17>3.0.co;2-a. View

14.

Testa A, Ludovisi M, Mascilini F, Di Legge A, Malaggese M, Fagotti A . Ultrasound evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of disease to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 39(1):99-105. DOI: 10.1002/uog.10100. View

15.

Gu Y, Qin M, Jin Y, Zuo J, Li N, Bian C . A Prediction Model for Optimal Primary Debulking Surgery Based on Preoperative Computed Tomography Scans and Clinical Factors in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study. Front Oncol. 2021; 10:611617. PMC: 7819136. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.611617. View

16.

Wentzensen N, Poole E, Trabert B, White E, Arslan A, Patel A . Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors by Histologic Subtype: An Analysis From the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(24):2888-98. PMC: 5012665. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.8178. View

17.

Gomez-Hidalgo N, Martinez-Cannon B, Nick A, Lu K, Sood A, Coleman R . Predictors of optimal cytoreduction in patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: Time to incorporate laparoscopic assessment into the standard of care. Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 137(3):553-8. PMC: 4825172. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.03.049. View

18.

Rizzo S, De Piano F, Buscarino V, Pagan E, Bagnardi V, Zanagnolo V . 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. 2019; 123:108786. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108786. View

19.

Espada M, Garcia-Flores J, Jimenez M, Alvarez-Moreno E, De Haro M, Gonzalez-Cortijo L . Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of implants to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23(9):2636-42. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2837-7. View

20.

Stuart G, Kitchener H, Bacon M, duBois A, Friedlander M, Ledermann J . 2010 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus statement on clinical trials in ovarian cancer: report from the Fourth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011; 21(4):750-5. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31821b2568. View