Increasing the effectiveness of referral of ovarian masses from cancer unit to cancer center by using a higher referral value of the risk of malignancy index

The role of biomarkers in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy for ovarian cancer, 70% of women still succumb to the disease. Biomarkers have contributed to the management of ovarian cancer by monitoring response to treatment, detecting recurrence, distinguishing benign from malignant pelvic masses and attempting to detect disease at an earlier stage. Areas covered: This review focuses on recent advances in biomarkers and imaging for management of ovarian cancer with particular emphasis on early detection. Relevant literature has been reviewed and analyzed. Expert commentary: Rising or persistent CA125 blood levels provide a highly specific biomarker for epithelial ovarian cancer, but not an optimally sensitive biomarker. Addition of HE4, CA 72.4, anti-TP53 autoantibodies and other biomarkers can increase sensitivity for detecting early stage or recurrent disease. Detecting disease recurrence will become more important as more effective therapy is developed. Early detection will require the development not only of biomarker panels, but also of more sensitive and specific imaging strategies. Effective biomarker strategies are already available for distinguishing benign from malignant pelvic masses, but their use in identifying and referring patients with probable ovarian cancer to gynecologic oncologists for cytoreductive operations must be encouraged.

The role of biomarkers in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy for ovarian cancer, 70% of women still succumb to the disease. Biomarkers have contributed to the management of ovarian cancer by monitoring response to treatment, detecting recurrence, distinguishing benign from malignant pelvic masses and attempting to detect disease at an earlier stage. Areas covered: This review focuses on recent advances in biomarkers and imaging for management of ovarian cancer with particular emphasis on early detection. Relevant literature has been reviewed and analyzed. Expert commentary: Rising or persistent CA125 blood levels provide a highly specific biomarker for epithelial ovarian cancer, but not an optimally sensitive biomarker. Addition of HE4, CA 72.4, anti-TP53 autoantibodies and other biomarkers can increase sensitivity for detecting early stage or recurrent disease. Detecting disease recurrence will become more important as more effective therapy is developed. Early detection will require the development not only of biomarker panels, but also of more sensitive and specific imaging strategies. Effective biomarker strategies are already available for distinguishing benign from malignant pelvic masses, but their use in identifying and referring patients with probable ovarian cancer to gynecologic oncologists for cytoreductive operations must be encouraged.

The role of biomarkers in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy for ovarian cancer, 70% of women still succumb to the disease. Biomarkers have contributed to the management of ovarian cancer by monitoring response to treatment, detecting recurrence, distinguishing benign from malignant pelvic masses and attempting to detect disease at an earlier stage. Areas covered: This review focuses on recent advances in biomarkers and imaging for management of ovarian cancer with particular emphasis on early detection. Relevant literature has been reviewed and analyzed. Expert commentary: Rising or persistent CA125 blood levels provide a highly specific biomarker for epithelial ovarian cancer, but not an optimally sensitive biomarker. Addition of HE4, CA 72.4, anti-TP53 autoantibodies and other biomarkers can increase sensitivity for detecting early stage or recurrent disease. Detecting disease recurrence will become more important as more effective therapy is developed. Early detection will require the development not only of biomarker panels, but also of more sensitive and specific imaging strategies. Effective biomarker strategies are already available for distinguishing benign from malignant pelvic masses, but their use in identifying and referring patients with probable ovarian cancer to gynecologic oncologists for cytoreductive operations must be encouraged.

Criteria for selection of laparoscopy for women with adnexal mass

Objectives:

We compared the indication of laparoscopy for treatment of adnexal masses based on the risk scores and tumor diameters with the indication based on gynecology-oncologists' experience.

Methods:

This was a prospective study of 174 women who underwent surgery for adnexal tumors (116 laparotomies, 58 laparoscopies). The surgeries begun and completed by laparoscopy, with benign pathologic diagnosis, were considered successful. Laparoscopic surgeries that required conversion to laparotomy, led to a malignant diagnosis, or facilitated cyst rupture were considered failures. Two groups were defined for laparoscopy indication: (1) absence of American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) guideline for referral of high-risk adnexal masses criteria (ACOG negative) associated with 3 different tumor sizes (10, 12, and 14 cm); and (2) Index of Risk of Malignancy (IRM) with cutoffs at 100, 200, and 300, associated with the same 3 tumor sizes. Both groups were compared with the indication based on the surgeon's experience to verify whether the selection based on strict rules would improve the rate of successful laparoscopy.

Results:

ACOG-negative and tumors ≤10 cm and IRM with a cutoff at 300 points and tumors ≤10cm resulted in the same best performance (78% success = 38/49 laparoscopies). However, compared with the results of the gynecology-oncologists' experience, those were not statistically significant.

Discussion:

The selection of patients with adnexal mass to laparoscopy by the use of the ACOG guideline or IRM associated with tumor diameter had similar performance as the experience of gynecology-oncologists. Both methods are reproducible and easy to apply to all women with adnexal masses and could be used by general gynecologists to select women for laparoscopic surgery; however, referral to a gynecology-oncologist is advisable when there is any doubt.

From bench to bedside: discovery of ovarian cancer biomarkers using high-throughput technologies in the past decade

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological malignancy and survival of this disease has remained relatively unchanged over the past 30 years. A contributing factor to this has been the lack of reliable biomarkers for the clinical management of ovarian cancer. Rapid advances in high-throughput technologies over the past decade has allowed for new and exciting opportunities for biomarker discovery in the field of ovarian cancer, especially with respect to serum biomarkers that can be used for various clinical applications. This review highlights the major genomic and proteomic studies dedicated to ovarian cancer biomarker discovery over the past decade. An emphasis will be placed on the HE4, Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and OVA1™ serum-based tests/algorithms that have recently been approved by the US FDA as ovarian cancer biomarkers.

Differential diagnosis of a pelvic mass: improved algorithms and novel biomarkers

More than 200,000 women undergo exploratory surgery for a pelvic mass in the United States each year and 13%-21% of pelvic lesions are found to be malignant. Individual reports and meta-analysis indicate better outcomes when cancer surgery is performed by gynecologic oncologists. Despite the advantages provided by more thorough staging and cytoreductive surgery, only 30%-50% of women with ovarian cancer are referred to surgeons with specialized training in the United States. Imaging, menopausal status and biomarkers can aid in distinguishing malignant from benign pelvic masses to inform decisions regarding appropriate referral. The risk of malignancy index (RMI) uses ultrasound, menopausal status and CA125 and has been utilized in the United Kingdom for two decades, providing sensitivity that has ranged from 71%-88% and specificity it from 97%-74% for identifying patients with malignant disease. Criteria have been established by the Society of Gynecology Oncology and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology for referral to a gynecologic oncologist, but these have lower sensitivity and specificity than the RMI. Recently, two new algorithms have been developed to identify women at sufficiently high risk to prompt referral to a specialized surgeon. The OVA1 multivariate index incorporates imaging, menopausal status, CA125 and four other proteomic biomarkers. Use of OVA1 provides 85%-96% sensitivity at 28%-40% specificity depending upon menopausal status. The negative predictive value for women judged to be at low risk is 94%-96%. The risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) includes CA125, human epididymal protein 4 and menopausal status, but not imaging results. The ROMA has yielded 93%-94% sensitivity at 75% specificity with a negative predictive value of 93%-98%. In a direct comparison, ROMA has achieved greater sensitivity (94%) than the RMI (75%) at 75% specificity. OVA1 has not been compared directly to ROMA, but is likely to be as sensitive, but substantially less specific. Both algorithms have high negative predictive values 94%-98%. Although a difference in specificity should not affect patient outcomes, it could affect distribution of medical resources.

Risk of malignancy index used as a diagnostic tool in a tertiary centre for patients with a pelvic mass

OBJECTIVE

Risk of malignancy index (RMI), based on a serum cancer antigen 125 level, ultrasound findings and menopausal status, is used to discriminate ovarian cancer from benign pelvic mass. In Denmark, patients with pelvic mass and RMI ≥200 are referred to tertiary gynecologic oncology centers according to the national guidelines for ovarian cancer treatment. The guidelines include recalculation of RMI at the tertiary center and, if indicated, positron emission tomography/computed tomography and fast-track surgery by specialists in cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to validate the use of RMI ≥200 as a tool for preoperative identification of ovarian cancer at a tertiary center.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

A tertiary center in Copenhagen, Denmark.

POPULATION

One thousand one hundred and fifty-nine women with pelvic mass.

METHODS

The RMI was calculated after ultrasound examination and blood sampling for serum cancer antigen 125 analysis within two weeks before surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated to evaluate the ability of RMI to distinguish between ovarian cancer and benign pelvic mass.

RESULTS

There were 778 women diagnosed with benign pelvic mass, while 251 had ovarian cancer and 74 had borderline ovarian tumor. Fifty-six women were diagnosed with other forms of cancer. Sensitivity and specificity for ovarian cancer vs. benign pelvic mass for RMI ≥200 were 92 and 82%, respectively. Corresponding positive and negative predictive values were 62 and 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of malignancy index ≥200 is a reliable tool for identifying patients with ovarian cancer pelvic masses at a tertiary centre to select patients for further preoperative examinations.

GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of adnexal masses in clinical practice: a prospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical usefulness of a structured reporting system based on ultrasound findings for management of adnexal masses.

METHODS

This was a prospective multicenter study comprising 432 adnexal masses in 372 women (mean age, 44.0 (range, 13-78) years) over a 36-month period. Ninety-three (25%) women were postmenopausal and 279 (75%) women were premenopausal. Patients were evaluated with transvaginal ultrasound by one of three examiners expert in gynecological ultrasound. Reporting was provided to referring clinicians according to the Gynecologic Imaging Report and Data System (GI-RADS) classification. A predetermined management protocol was offered to referral clinicians. It was suggested that patients classified as GI-RADS 2 be managed with follow-up scan, patients classified as GI-RADS 3 undergo laparoscopic surgery and patients classified as GI-RADS 4 or 5 be referred to a gynecologic oncologist. Definitive histologic diagnosis was available in 370 cases and 62 additional cases were considered as benign because of spontaneous resolution during follow-up. These outcomes were used as the gold standard for calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of GI-RADS classification for identifying adnexal masses at high risk of malignancy, considering GI-RADS 4 and 5 as being malignant.

RESULTS

Of the 432 tumors, 112 were malignant and 320 benign. The GI-RADS classification rate was as follows: GI-RADS 2, 92 (21%) cases; GI-RADS 3, 184 (43%) cases; GI-RADS 4, 40 (9%) cases; GI-RADS 5, (27%) 116 cases. Sensitivity for this system was 99.1% (95% CI, 95.1-99.8%), specificity was 85.9% (95% CI, 81.7-89.3%), LR+ was 7.05 (95% CI, 5.37-9.45) and LR- was 0.01 (95% CI, 0.001-0.07). PPV and NPV were 71.1% and 99.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The GI-RADS reporting system performed well in identifying adnexal masses at high risk of malignancy and seems to be useful for clinical decision-making.

Evaluation of the risk malignancy index diagnostic value in patients with adnexal masses

Background/Aim. Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic malignancies. Risk of malignancy index (RMI) is recommended in assessment of patients with adnexal masses. The aim of this study was to verify the effectiveness of the RMI in the discrimination between benign lesions and malignant adnexal masses in clinical practice. Methods. Ultrasounds were performed for all the patients and menopausal status, CA125 level and calculated RMI were defined. All the patients were divided into 3 groups depending on RMI (< 25, 25-200, > 200). After operations all adnexal masses were analyzed histopathologically (HP) and then sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of RMI were calculated. Results. Out of a total of 81 patients involved benign tumor had 51 (62.96%) and malignant 30 (37.04%) of the patients. The average value of CA125 in the group of patients with benign adnexal masses was 68.3 U/mL and in the group of patients with malignant adnexal masses it was 581.95 U/mL. In the group of patients with benign adnexal masses the average RMI was 284.9 and in the group of patients with malignant adnexal masses RMI was 469.2. All the results showed a positive correlation between both HP categories and RMI categories. The more malignant HP result produced higher RMI and the cut off value was RMI = 200. Sensitivity of RMI was 83.33%, specificity was 94.12%, positive predictive value was 89.29% and negative predictive value was 90.57%. Conclusion. Our study showed that RMI is very reliable in differentiation benign from malignant adnexal masses.