Comparison of CA-125, conventional ultrasound and CT imaging in diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer correlated with surgico-pathological findings
Keywords:
Ovarian cancer, Ultrasound, CT, RMI-3, Surgical stagingAbstract
Background: Preoperative evaluation of suspected ovarian malignancy is of paramount importance and a diagnostic tool with high degree of precision helps treating physician in planning appropriate surgery and also neoadjuvant chemo therapy in candidates who are not currently fit for extensive surgical procedure. Though the ultrasound examination of abdomen and pelvis helps one in detection and characterization of adnexal lesion to some extent, its diagnostic ability is further improved by addition of advanced imaging techniques such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and thus can prove beneficial in choosing patient for right surgery, there by optimising the treatment outcome. Objective of current study was to compare ultrasonography imaging, CT imaging, CA-125 values, RMI 3 score, surgical staging and histopathological findings in carcinoma ovary.
Methods: The study is a prospective observational study, carried out between September 2011 and July 2013, in the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, Kasturba hospital, Manipal. All cases of carcinoma ovary who underwent imaging (USG, CT/ MRI) were followed by staging laparotomy during the course of study. All cases of carcinoma ovary who has undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. All patients included in the study underwent CA-125 estimation, conventional ultrasound, CT scan (Sixty four slice with contrast) followed by staging laparotomy and histopathological examination of the specimen. RMI-3 (Risk Malignancy Index Score-3) was calculated in all cases.
Results: 54 patients were included in the evaluation. The efficacy of CT (Sensitivity 95.1%, specificity 46.2%) and Ultrasound (Sensitivity 90.2%, specificity 53.8%) were comparable in detection of ovarian malignancy. Combination of CT and USG (Sensitivity 95%, specificity 78.6%) gave the best result in non-invasive investigations whereas combination of CT and surgical staging (Sensitivity 95.1%, specificity 84.6%) gave a better result when invasive modalities were considered. RMI-3 score had sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 64% and did not improve the accuracy.
Conclusions: Optimal preoperative evaluation was achieved with combination of USG and CT. Additional of CA-125 further improved the precision. All the three modes had good diagnostic performances, and complimented each other in further refining the characterization of the mass, local spread and distant tumour dissemination.
References
Basu P, De P, Mandal S, Ray K, Biswas J. Study of 'patterns of care' of ovarian cancer patients in a specialized cancer institute in Kolkata, eastern India. Indian J Cancer. 2009;46:28-33.
GLOBOCAN 2012. Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence in 2012. World Health Organization. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2012. Available at: http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 25 August 2014.
Anish Bali, Karina R. Eynolds. The current management of primary ovarian cancer: a review. Cancer Ther. 2002;2:305-16.
Garner EI, Garrett AP, Berkowitz RS. Natural history and detection of ovarian carcinoma. Glob Libr Women’s Med. 2008; DOI 10.3843/GLOWM.10246.
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.
Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CMC, Hamper UM, Arger PH, Bree RL, 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.
Woodward PJ, Hosseinzadeh K, Saenger JS. Radiologic staging of ovarian carcinoma with pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2004;24(1):225-46.
Javitt MC, Fleischer AC, Andreotti RF, Bohm-Velez M, Horrow MM, Hricak H, et al. Staging and follow-up of ovarian cancer. Am Coll Radiol. 2005;12(3):23-6.
9. Jung SE, Lee JM, Rha SE, Byun JY, Jung JI, Hahn ST. CT and MR imaging of ovarian tumors with emphasis on differential diagnosis. RadioGraphics 2002; 22:1305-1325.
Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144:163-7.
Iyer VR, Lee SI. MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(2):311-21.
Anton C, Carvalho FM, Oliveira EI, Maciel GAR, Baracat EC, Carvalho JP. A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses. Clinics. 2012;67(5):437-41.
Liu J, Xu Y, Wang J. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2007;62(3):328-34.
Fatma Ferda Verit, Mustafa Pehlivan. Transvaginal ultrasound and computed tomography combined with Ca-125 determinations in preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Harran Üniversitesi Tip Fakültesi Dergisi. 2007;4(2):50-4.
Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A, et al. 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.
Firoozabadi RD, Zarchi MK, Mansurian HR, Moghadam BR, Teimoori S, Naseri A. Evaluation of diagnostic value of CT scan, physical examination and ultrasound based on pathological findings in patients with pelvic masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prevent. 2011;12(7):1745-7.
Kaijser J, Bourne T, Valentin L, Sayasneh A, Van Holsbeke C, Vergote I, et al. Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the international ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;41(1):9-20.
Hafeez S, Sufian S, Beg M, Hadi Q, Jamil Y, Masroor I. Role of ultrasound in characterization of ovarian masses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prevent. 2013;14(1):603-6.
Mubarak F, Alam MS, Akhtar W, Hafeez S, Nizamuddin N. Role of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients with ovarian masses. Int J Women’s Health. 2011;3(1):123-6.
Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CMC, Hamper UM, Arger PH, Bree RL, 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.
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;236:85-94.
Redman C, Duffy S, Bromham N, Francis K. Guidelines: recognition and initial management of ovarian cancer: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2011;342:7804.
