Evaluation of selected ultrasonographic parameters and marker levels in the preoperative differentiation of borderline ovarian tumors and ovarian cancers

Characteristics and prognosis of borderline ovarian tumors in pre and postmenopausal patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient characteristics, imaging results, surgical management and prognosis of borderline ovarian tumors (BOT) between pre and postmenopausal patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort of all cases of histologically verified BOT between 1990-2018, comparing presentation, imaging, surgical procedures and recurrence. Patients were included in the postmenopausal group if they reported 12 months of amenorrhea with or without menopausal symptoms.

RESULTS

During this 28 year study period, 66 operations were performed in which BOT was confirmed. Postmenopausal patients were 37-89 years old and premenopausal patients 18-50 years old, with an average age of 63.9 ± 13.4 and 36.2 ± 8.4 years, respectively (p < 0.001). The majority of patients in both groups were diagnosed due to abdominal pain, followed by incidental diagnosis on routine ultrasound. Imaging and CA-125 levels upon presentation were similar. Almost sixty percent of postmenopausal and 26.3% of premenopausal patients underwent laparotomy (p = 0.01), while those who underwent laparoscopy were 35.7% and 60.5%, respectively (p = 0.03). Most postmenopausal patients underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), whereas premenopausal surgeries involved cystectomy. Nearly all study patients were diagnosed in stage one. Malignant transformation occurred in 7.1% of postmenopausal patients. No malignant transformation was found in premenopausal patients.

CONCLUSION

BOT's present similarly in pre and postmenopausal patients. Postmenopausal patients undergo more extensive surgery, and are diagnosed in early stage disease. Despite a tendency for a more conservative approach in premenopausal patients, prognosis is similar in both groups.

[Borderline Ovarian Tumours: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice - Imaging]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the place of imaging and the performance of different imaging techniques (transvaginal ultrasound with or without Doppler, scoring, CT, MRI) to differentiate benign tumour, borderline ovarian tumour (BOT) and malignant ovarian tumor. Differentiate the histological subtypes of BOT (serous, sero-mucinous, mucinous) and prediction in imaging of the possibility of conservative treatment.

METHODS

The research was carried out over the last 16 years using the terms "MeSH" based on the query of the Medline® database and supplemented by the review of references contained in the meta-analyzes, systematic reviews and original articles included.

RESULTS

Endo-vaginal and suprapubic ultrasonography is recommended for analysis of an ovarian mass (grade A). In the case of ultrasound by a referent, subjective analysis is the recommended technique (grade A). In case of echography by a non-referent, the use of "Simple Rules" is recommended (grade A) and should be best combined with subjective analysis to rejoin the performance of a sonographer refer (grade A). In cases of undetermined ovarian lesions in endovaginal ultrasound and suprapubic ultrasound, it is recommended to perform a pelvic MRI (grade A). The MRI protocol should include T2, T1, T1 sequences with fat saturation, diffusion, injected dynamics, and after gadolinium injection (grade B). To characterize an MRI-adnexal image, it is recommended to include a risk score for malignancy (ADNEX-MR/O-RADS) (grade C) in the report and to formulate an anatomopathological hypothesis (Grade C). The predictive signs of benignity in front of a cyst with endocystic vegetations are the low number, the small size, the presence of calcifications and the absence of Doppler flow in case of size greater than 10mm in echography (LP 4) and a curve of type 1 MRI (LP4). MRI is recommended for suspicious lesions of BOT in ultrasound (grade B) or indeterminate lesions in ultrasound (grade A). There is no data to support the usefulness of CT or PET-CT for BOT. Morphological criteria in ultrasound and MRI exist to differentiate BOT from invasive tumors regardless of grade (NP 2). Pelvic MRI is recommended to characterize a tumor suggestive of ultrasound BOT (grade C). No recommendations can be made about the use of combined ultrasound, biological, and menopausal status scores for the diagnosis of BOT. The diagnostic performance of imaging to detect peritoneal implants of BOT is not known. The assessment of the invasiveness of peritoneal implants of imaging BOT has not been evaluated. The association of macroscopic signs in MRI makes it possible to differentiate the different subtypes - serous, sero-mucinous and mucinous (intestinal type) - of BOT, despite the overlap of certain presentations (LP3). The analysis of macroscopic MRI signs must be performed to differentiate the different subtypes of TFO (grade C). No recommendation can be made on imaging prediction of the possibility of conservative BOT treatment.

Diagnostic extended usefulness of RMI: comparison of four risk of malignancy index in preoperative differentiation of borderline ovarian tumors and benign ovarian tumors

Background

This study aimed to examine the performance of the four risk of malignancy index (RMI) in discriminating borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) and benign ovarian masses in daily clinical practice.

Methods

A total of 162 women with BOTs and 379 women with benign ovarian tumors diagnosed at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University from January 2012 to December 2016 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Also, we classified these patients into serous borderline ovarian tumor (SBOT) and mucinous borderline ovarian tumor (MBOT) subgroup. Preoperative ultrasound findings, cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and menopausal status were reviewed. The area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operator characteristic curves (ROC) and performance indices of RMI I, RMI II, RMI III and RMI IV were calculated and compared for discrimination between benign ovarian tumors and BOTs.

Results

RMI I had the highest AUC (0.825, 95% CI: 0.790–0.856) among the four RMIs in BOTs group. Similar results were found in SBOT (0.839, 95% CI: 0.804–0.871) and MBOT (0.791, 95% CI: 0.749–0.829) subgroups. RMI I had the highest specificity among the BOTs group (87.6, 95% CI: 83.9–90.7%), SBOT (87.6, 95% CI: 83.9–90.7%) and MBOT group (87.6, 95% CI: 83.9–90.7%). RMI II scored the highest overall in terms of sensitivity among the BOTs group (69.75, 95% CI: 62.1–76.7%), SBOT (74.34, 95% CI: 65.3–82.1%) and MBOT (59.18, 95% CI: 44.2–73.0%) group.

Conclusion

Compared to other RMIs, RMI I was the best-performed method for differentiation of BOTs from benign ovarian tumors. At the same time, RMI I also performed best in the discrimination SBOT from benign ovarian tumors.

Differentiating between borderline and invasive malignancies in ovarian tumors using a multivariate logistic regression model

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to build a model to differentiate between borderline and invasive ovarian tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective study involving 148 patients with borderline or invasive ovarian tumors in our institute between 1997 and 2012. Clinical and pathologic data were collected. Logistic regression was used to build the model.

RESULTS

The model was created based on the following variables (p < 0.05): menopausal status; preoperative serum level of cancer antigen 125; the greatest diameter of the tumor; and the presence of solid parts on ultrasound imaging. The sensitivity and specificity of the model were 94.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.887-1] and 78.3% (95% CI, 0.614-0.952) for patients aged ≥ 50 years, and 76.0% (95% CI, 0.622-0.903) and 60.0% (95% CI, 0.438-0.762) for those aged < 50 years, respectively. The performance of the model was tested using cross-validation.

CONCLUSION

Differentiation between borderline and invasive ovarian tumors can be achieved using a model based on the following criteria: menopausal status; cancer antigen 125 level; and ultrasound parameters. The model is helpful to oncologists and patients in the initial evaluation phase of ovarian tumors.

Review of Commonly Used Serum Tumor Markers and Their Relevance for Image Interpretation

Serum tumor markers are firmly entrenched as one of the primary tools in an oncologist's armamentarium. They can be implemented in a broad range of applications from diagnostic assistance, assessing prognosis, or guiding therapeutic decisions. However, tumor markers also have limitations, which significantly impact how they should be used. Radiologists should be familiar with the following most prevalent tumor markers, which will all be discussed here: prostate-specific antigen (prostate), carcinoembryonic antigen (colon), α-fetoprotein (hepatocellular and testicular), carbohydrate antigen 19.9 (pancreas), cancer antigen 125 (ovarian), human chorionic gonadotropin/lactic dehydrogenase (testicular), and chromogranin A (neuroendocrine). This knowledge should avoid needless intervention, enhance image interpretation, and ultimately provide optimal patient care.

Fertility sparing treatment in borderline ovarian tumours

Borderline ovarian tumours are low malignant potential tumours. They represent 10-15% of all epithelial ovarian malignancies. Patients with this type of tumour are younger at the time of diagnosis than patients with invasive ovarian cancer. Most of them are diagnosed in the early stages and have an excellent prognosis. It has been quite clearly established that the majority of borderline ovarian tumours should be managed with surgery alone. Because a high proportion of women with this malignancy are young and the prognosis is excellent, the preservation of fertility is an important issue in the management of these tumours. In this systemic review of the literature, we have evaluated in-depth oncological safety and reproductive outcomes in women with borderline ovarian tumours treated with fertility-sparing surgery, reviewing the indications, benefits, and disadvantages of each type of conservative surgery, as well as new alternative options to surgery to preserve fertility.

Usefulness of the HE4 biomarker as a second-line test in the assessment of suspicious ovarian tumors

Purpose

The aim of our study was the evaluation of HE4 usefulness as a test in assessment of ovarian tumors which are suspicious and difficult to classify correctly via subjective ultrasound examination.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study 253 women diagnosed with adnexal masses were examined preoperatively. Suspicious tumors (n = 145) were divided into groups of: “probably benign” (n = 70), “uncertain” (n = 34), and “probably malignant” (n = 41). “Uncertain” tumors were also assessed as “benign” (n = 11) or “malignant” (n = 23). The logistic regression model was performed to analyze if the serum marker improves the prediction of a malignant finding and net reclassification improvement (NRI) was calculated to measure diagnostic improvement.

Results

Within the analyzed group 85 (58.6 %) benign and 60 (41.4 %) malignant tumors were confirmed histopathologically. The comparison of HE4 with subjective ultrasound assessment showed lowered NRI in the entire analyzed group as well as in the groups of tumors classified as “probably benign” or “probably malignant” (NRI = −0.16; P = 0.0139 and NRI = −0.133; P = 0.0489, respectively). The analysis of logistic regression model confirmed that biomarkers do not improve diagnostic accuracy. The difference between areas under ROC for HE4 (0.891) and CA125 (0.902) was not statistically significant (P = 0.760).

Conclusions

After subjective ultrasound assessment, the addition of the second-line test—HE4 as well as CA125 serum level does not improve diagnostic performance. However, HE4 evaluation satisfies the clinical expectations of diagnostic tools for ovarian tumors and, thus, may be useful to less experienced sonographers.