Pathway
Pathway Diagram
Images
Image Gallery
Note: Images coming soon |
|
Teaching Points
Teaching Points
- Imaging is used in the preoperative assessment of ovarian cancer to define the extent of disease, which helps guide the most appropriate primary therapy
- MDCT is the imaging modality of choice in preoperative imaging of ovarian cancer. Preoperative imaging generally includes CT abdomen and pelvis (and may include CT chest). Combined PET/CT shows promise for staging, but more evidence is required
- MRI should be used when CT is contraindicated or for "problem-solving" inconclusive CT findings
- Image guided core biopsy using CT or US provides an immunohistological diagnosis and guides further management
biopsy
Image Guided Biopsy
- In patients for whom initial radical cytoreductive surgery is considered inappropriate (such as those with widespread bulky disease, or in a poor clinical state), a tissue sample can taken using image guided core biopsy (IGCB). This allows for an immunohistological diagnosis of the tumour and may guide further management
- IGCB can also differentiate between benign causes of ovarian masses and distinguish between primary and secondary ovarian cancers, which all have very different treatment strategies. A study of 110 patients with malignant ovarian masses, found that it was very difficult to distinguish between primary and metastatic ovarian lesions based on imaging features on CT, MRI or US 12
- IGCB of peritoneal or omental lesions is usually performed under CT or US guidance, and is considered to be effective, safe and well tolerated. In several studies, IGCB provided site specific histological diagnoses in 77-91% of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. 13,14,15 Complications were few and included local bruising, discomfort and one report of a rectus sheath haematoma which was treated conservatively 14
ct
Computed Tomography (CT) And Nuclear Imaging
Computed Tomography (CT)
- MDCT is the imaging modality of choice in preoperative imaging of ovarian cancer. Preoperative imaging generally includes CT abdomen and pelvis. MDCT can detect local disease as well as nodal involvement and distant metastases. 7 If a chest radiograph has not been performed, a CT chest can be considered
- The Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group compared US, MRI and CT for diagnosis and staging of advanced ovarian cancer in a group of 280 patients. 8 They found no significant differences for the overall diagnostic accuracy of CT & MRI using receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC 0.91 for both MRI & CT). For staging advanced disease, they found that CT had good sensitivity and specificity for detecting peritoneal disease (92%, 82% respectively). This was similar to MRI and superior to US. For lymph node and hepatic parenchymal disease, CT had low sensitivity (40-43%) but good specificity (89-96%)
- CT has been investigated for its ability to predict successful surgical cytoreduction. Forstner et al performed a prospective study assessing the value of CT & MRI in predicting tumour resectability. They found the PPV of CT to predict successful tumour resectability was 92%. 9 Several groups have tried to create preoperative criteria based on imaging findings in order to predict surgical outcome, but none have been universally validated. This is likely due to differences in available surgical expertise, individual surgeons' preferences & institutional preferences
- A limitation of CT is poor detection of small peritoneal metastases. Advances in CT technology, such as helical CT allowing for thinner slice collimation, have improved detection to an extent. Coakley et al examined detection rates of peritoneal metastases using preoperative spiral CT, and showed an overall sensitivity of 89% for all size lesions. However for lesions <1cm, the sensitivity was only 42% 11
- The benefits of CT over MRI include shorter examination time and wider availability
- More recently, studies have compared CT with combined PET/CT, and have generally shown more accurate staging with PET/CT 18,19
Nuclear Imaging
- The use of fludeoxyglucose (18F) positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for ovarian cancer staging is not well supported in the literature
- FDG-PET has poorer sensitivity & specificity for detecting new ovarian cancers when compared to CT & MRI (sensitivity 58%, specificity 76-78%). 16,17 The limitations of FDG-PET include high financial cost, limited resolution, poor sensitivity at picking up early stage lesions and false positive results (e.g. dermoid cysts, endometriosis, gastrointestinal activity)
- The combination of PET & CT may prove more promising, particularly for diagnosing advanced disease and detecting recurrent tumour. However the additional benefits over CT alone are not yet fully established
- Two studies have examined the use of PET/CT for staging of ovarian cancer. 18,19 In these prospective studies, PET/CT & CT staging were compared using histological staging as the gold standard. PET/CT showed an overall better accuracy (concordance with histological staging) than CT (69-75% vs 53-55%). PET/CT was also more sensitive at detecting distant metastases (75-83% vs 40-50%). Some issues that were found in these studies were underdiagnosis of small stage I lesions due to their limited FDG uptake, and overdiagnosis of peritoneal dissemination due to physiological uptake by the bowel. Another major limitation of these studies is their small patient populations
- Although combined PET/CT shows promise in ovarian cancer staging, larger multicenter studies should be undertaken to verify the accuracy of PET/CT
mri
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
- MRI is often used as a “problem-solving” modality due to its ability to accurately evaluate common benign conditions (e.g. Fibroids, dermoid cysts). MRI has several limitations in staging when compared with CT such as higher cost, problems with covering the entire abdomen and pelvis, longer examination times and limited accessibility
- Studies comparing MRI to CT have generally shown similar sensitivities and specificities between the modalities. In one meta-analysis, contrast enhanced MRI had the same sensitivity but better specificity 10
- Due to the above reasons, the use of MRI should be limited to when CT is contraindicated or when CT findings are inconclusive
ovarian
Ovarian Cancer And Staging
Ovarian Cancer
- Ovarian cancer is the 7th most common cause of death in Australian women, despite accounting for less than 3% of cancers. Incidence of 11 per 100 000 women 1
- Ovarian cancer tends to present late (nearly 60% present with stage III-IV disease), due in part to non-specific symptoms and associated delay in diagnosis. The vast majority of ovarian cancers remain intra-abdominal, and metastases are rare at initial presentation 2
- Risk factors include family history of ovarian or breast cancer and associated genetic syndromes (e.g. BRCA mutations, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome)
- Protective factors may include oral contraceptives, late menarche, early menopause, multiparity and breast feeding (possibly through decreased ovulation, or increased progesterone levels)
- There is emerging evidence that primary ovarian cancer should be considered as a part of the ovarian carcinoma, Fallopian tube carcinoma and primary peritoneal carcinoma complex 3
Staging Of Ovarian Cancer
- There are two main staging classifications - FIGO4 and TMN (AJCC) 5
- Exploratory laparotomy is both the gold standard investigation for staging, and the standard treatment of ovarian cancer. Comprehensive cytoreductive surgery includes total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy, omentectomy, lymphadenectomy, peritoneal washings and random peritoneal biopsies. Successful cytoreductive surgery is associated with better survival rates 6
- However, up to 40% of patients with apparent early stage disease may be understaged at laparotomy. This may be due to factors relating to the patient (e.g. pregnant at time of diagnosis), the surgeon (e.g. lack of subspecialist training), or the tumour (e.g. microscopic retroperitoneal nodal metastases not removed at primary surgery)
- Imaging is used in the preoperative assessment of ovarian cancer to define the extent of disease, which helps guide the most appropriate primary therapy
TMN |
FIGO |
Description |
5Y Surv |
Tx |
|
Primary tumour cannot be assessed. |
|
T0 |
|
No evidence of primary tumour. |
|
Tis |
|
Carcinoma in situ (limited to tubal mucosa). |
|
T1 |
I |
Growth limited to ovaries (one or both). |
93% |
T1a |
Ia |
Tumour limited to one ovary; capsule intact, no tumour on ovarian surface. No malignant cells in ascites or peritoneal washings. |
|
T1b |
Ib |
Tumour limited to both ovaries; capsules intact, no tumour on ovarian surface. No malignant cells in ascites or peritoneal washings. |
|
T1c |
Ic |
Tumour limited to one or both tubes with any of the following: capsule ruptured, tumor on ovarian surface, malignant cells in ascites or peritoneal washings. |
|
T2 |
II |
Tumour involves one or both ovaries with pelvic extension. |
70% |
T2a |
IIa |
Extension and/or metastasis to the uterus and/or tubes. |
|
T2b |
IIb |
Extension to and/or implants on other pelvic structures. |
|
T2c |
IIc |
Pelvic extension and/or implants (T2a or T2b) with malignant cells in ascites or peritoneal washings. |
|
T3 |
III |
Tumor involving one or both ovaries with histologically confirmed peritoneal metastasis outside the pelvis. |
37% |
T3a |
IIIa |
Microscopic peritoneal metastasis outside pelvis. |
|
T3b |
IIIb |
Macroscopic peritoneal metastasis outside the pelvis ≤2cm greatest diameter. |
|
T3c |
IIIc |
Peritoneal metastasis outside the pelvis and ≥2cm greatest diameter and/or regional lymph node metastasis. |
|
Nx |
|
Regional lymph node metastasis cannot be assessed. |
|
N0 |
|
No regional lymph node metastasis. |
|
N1 |
IIIc |
Regional lymph node metastasis. |
|
M0 |
|
No distant metastasis. |
25% |
M1 |
IV |
Distant metastasis (excluding peritoneal metastasis). |
|
Anatomic stage / Prognostic groups |
Stage I |
T1 |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage Ia |
T1a |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage Ib |
T1b |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage Ic |
T1c |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage II |
T2 |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage IIa |
T2a |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage IIb |
T2b |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage IIc |
T2c |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage III |
T3 |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage IIIa |
T3a |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage IIIb |
T3b |
N0 |
M0 |
Stage IIIc |
T3c |
N0 |
M0 |
|
Any T |
N1 |
M0 |
Stage IV |
Any T |
Any N |
M0 |
References
References
References are graded from Level I to V according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Levels of Evidence. Download the document
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Australasian Association of Cancer Registries 2010. Cancer in Australia: an overview, 2010. Cancer series no. 60. Cat. no. CAN 56. Canberra: AIHW. (Government publication)
- Jordan SJ, et al. Pathways to the diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer in Australia. Med J Aust. 2010;193(6):326-30. (Level IV evidence)
- Dubeau L. The cell of origin of ovarian epithelial tumours. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(12):1191-7. (Review article)
- FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Current FIGO staging for cancer of the vagina, fallopian tube, ovary, and gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(1):3-4. (Guideline document)
- Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. Chicago: American Joint Committee on Cancer; c2009. (Guideline document)
- Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(5):1248-59. (Level II evidence)
- Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CM, Hamper UM, Arger PH, et al. Diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer: comparative values of Doppler and conventional US, CT, and MR imaging correlated with surgery and histopathologic analysis--report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 1999;212(1):19-27. (Level III evidence)
- Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG, Brown DL, Kurtz AB, McNeil BJ. Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities--report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 2000;215(3):761-7. (Level III evidence)
- Forstner R, Hricak H, Occhipinti KA, Powell CB, Frankel SD, Stern JL. Ovarian cancer: staging with CT and MR imaging. Radiology. 1995;197(3):619-26. (Level III evidence)
- Kinkel K, Lu Y, Mehdizade A, Pelte MF, Hricak H. Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization--meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology. 2005;236(1):85-94. (Level II evidence)
- Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA, Pothuri B, Venkatraman E, Chi D, Bergman A, Hricak H. Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology. 2002;223(2):495-9. (Level III evidence)
- Brown DL, Zou KH, Tempany CM, Frates MC, Silverman SG, et al. Primary versus secondary ovarian malignancy: imaging findings of adnexal masses in the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group Study. Radiology. 2001;219(1):213-8. (Level III evidence)
- Spencer JA, Swift SE, Wilkinson N, Boon AP, Lane G, Perren TJ. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: image-guided peritoneal core biopsy for tumor type and patient care. Radiology. 2001;221(1):173-7. (Level III evidence)
- Hewitt MJ, Anderson K, Hall GD, Weston M, Hutson R, et al. Women with peritoneal carcinomatosis of unknown origin: Efficacy of image-guided biopsy to determine site-specific diagnosis. BJOG. 2007;114(1):46-50. (Level III evidence)
- Griffin N, Grant LA, Freeman SJ, Jimenez-Linan M, Berman LH, et al. Image-guided biopsy in patients with suspected ovarian carcinoma: a safe and effective technique? Eur Radiol. 2009;19(1):230-5. (Level III evidence)
- Rieber A, Nüssle K, Stöhr I, Grab D, Fenchel S, 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):123-9. (Level III evidence)
- Fenchel S, Grab D, Nuessle K, Kotzerke J, Rieber A, et al. Asymptomatic adnexal masses: correlation of FDG PET and histopathologic findings. Radiology. 2002;223(3):780-8. (Level III evidence)
- Castellucci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, Ghi T, Farsad M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28(8):589-95. (Level III evidence)
- Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Fukasawa I, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(10):1912-20. (Level III evidence)
copyright
Copyright
© Copyright 2015, Department of Health Western Australia. All Rights Reserved. This web site and its content has been prepared by Radiology Across Borders. The information contained on this web site is protected by copyright.
Legal Notice
Please remember that this leaflet is intended as general information only. It is not definitive and Radiology Across Borders can not accept any legal liability arising from its use. The information is kept as up to date and accurate as possible, but please be warned that it is always subject to change
.