RSS-Feed abonnieren
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/60f12/60f1207d64e709348d01b6a01c0352d16ea3240a" alt=""
DOI: 10.1055/a-1079-5158
CT Scan in the Prediction of Lymph Node Involvement in Ovarian Cancer – a Retrospective Analysis of a Tertiary Gyneco-Oncological Unit
Einsatz von Computertomografie zur Vorhersage des Lymphknotenbefalls beim Ovarialkarzinom – eine retrospektive Analyse einer Einrichtung der tertiären GesundheitsvorsorgePublikationsverlauf
received 28. August 2019
revised 06. November 2019
accepted 07. Dezember 2019
Publikationsdatum:
24. März 2020 (online)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/33938/339380c94142f0e87de408abab5f2a31c45cbf05" alt=""
Abstract
Background The prognostic value of lymph node removal in ovarian cancer varies depending on the tumor stage. While in the advanced stage the removal of clinically normal lymph nodes does not improve the prognosis, this is still unclear in the early stages. Evaluation of the lymph nodes based on preoperative imaging influences the surgical procedure.
Methods This retrospective analysis was performed by analyzing data from 114 patients with ovarian cancer, treated in our university hospital in the years 2000 – 2012. Diagnostic performance of imaging by computer tomography with respect to the correct prediction of lymph node status was analyzed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value.
Results Imaging by computer tomography showed a rather limited diagnostic performance with regard to the detection of lymph node metastases in ovarian cancer, with a sensitivity of 40.7%, a specificity of 89.1%, a positive predictive value of 80.0%, and a negative predictive value of 58.3%. A separate analysis for pelvic and paraaortic lymph node involvement showed a better diagnostic performance of computer tomography for the detection of positive paraaortic lymph nodes (41.2, 93.1, 84.0, and 64.3% for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, respectively) as compared to the detection of positive pelvic lymph nodes (25.6, 91.8, 62.5, and 69.8%).
Conclusion The preoperative prediction of lymph node status by computer tomography is limited. A decision for or against lymphadenectomy should not be made solely on the basis of this approach.
Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund Die prognostische Bedeutung einer Lymphknotendissektion beim Ovarialkarzinom variiert je nach Tumorstadium. Während im fortgeschrittenen Erkrankungsstadium die Entfernung von klinisch normalen Lymphknoten nicht zu einer Verbesserung der Prognose führt, ist noch nicht geklärt, ob dies auch im Frühstadium der Erkrankung zutrifft. Eine präoperative Lymphknotenevaluation mithilfe bildgebender Verfahren wirkt sich auf den nachfolgenden operativen Eingriff aus.
Methoden Die Daten von 114 in unserer Universitätsklinik zwischen 2000 und 2012 behandelten Patientinnen mit Ovarialkarzinom wurden einer retrospektiven Analyse unterzogen. Die diagnostische Leistung der Computertomografie bei der korrekten Vorhersage des Lymphknotenstatus wurde in Bezug auf Sensitivität, Spezifität sowie positiven und negativen Vorhersagewert analysiert.
Ergebnisse Die Computertomografie hatte einen eher begrenzten diagnostischen Wert für die Entdeckung von Lymphknotenmetastasen beim Ovarialkarzinom: Die Sensitivität betrug 40,7%, die Spezifität 89,1%, der positive Vorhersagewert war 80,0% und der negative Vorhersagewert 58,3%. Eine separate Analyse zur Bedeutung der Computertomografie bei der Entdeckung befallener pelviner und paraaortaler Lymphknoten stellte eine bessere diagnostische Leistung bei der Entdeckung von positiven paraaortalen Lymphknoten (41,2, 93,1, 84,0 bzw. 64,3% für die Sensitivität, Spezifität und den positiven bzw. negativen Vorhersagewert) fest, verglichen mit der Auffindung von positiven pelvinen Lymphknoten (25,6, 91,8, 62,5 und 69,8%).
Schlussfolgerung Die präoperative prognostische Aussage der Computertomografie bezüglich Lymphknotenstatus ist begrenzt. Die Entscheidung für oder gegen eine Lymphadenektomie sollte nicht nur auf dieser Grundlage getroffen werden.
-
References
- 1 Reid BM, Permuth JB, Sellers TA. Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a review. Cancer Biol Med 2017; 14: 9-32 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28443200
- 2 Colombo N, Sessa C, du Bois A. et al. ESMO–ESGO Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference Working Group. ESMO–ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019; 29: 728-760 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31048403
- 3 Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK. et al. Survival Effect of Maximal Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma During the Platinum Era: A Meta-Analysis. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 1248-1259 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11870167
- 4 Chan JK, Munro EG, Cheung MK. et al. Association of Lymphadenectomy and Survival in Stage I Ovarian Cancer Patients. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 12-19 Online: http://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00006250-200701000-00004
- 5 Kleppe M, Van Gorp T. et al. The impact of lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy on survival: A nationwide cohort study of patients with clinical early-stage ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 2016; 66: 83-90 Online: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959804916323176
- 6 Morice P, Joulie F, Camatte S. et al. Lymph node involvement in epithelial ovarian cancer: analysis of 276 pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomies and surgical implications. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 197: 198-205 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12892797
- 7 Powless CA, Aletti GD, Bakkum-Gamez JN. et al. Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in apparent early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: Implications for surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 122: 536-540 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636114
- 8 Kleppe M, Wang T, Van Gorp T. et al. Lymph node metastasis in stages I and II ovarian cancer: A review. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 123: 610-614 Online: http://www.gynecologiconcology-online.net/article/S0090-8258(11)00783-9/pdf
- 9 Muyldermans K, Moerman P, Amant F. et al. Primary invasive mucinous ovarian carcinoma of the intestinal type: importance of the expansile versus infiltrative type in predicting recurrence and lymph node metastases. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 1600-1608 Online: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959804912009616
- 10 Heitz F, Harter P, Ataseven B. et al. Stage- and Histologic Subtype-Dependent Frequency of Lymph Node Metastases in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Undergoing Systematic Pelvic and Paraaortic Lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25: 2053-2059 Online: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1245/s10434-018-6412-y.pdf
- 11 du Bois A, Reuss A, Harter P. et al. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom; Groupe dʼInvestigateurs Nationaux pour lʼEtude des Cancers Ovariens. Potential Role of Lymphadenectomy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Combined Exploratory Analysis of Three Prospectively Randomized Phase III Multicenter Trials. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1733-1739 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20194855
- 12 Ataseven B, Grimm C, Harter P. et al. Prognostic value of lymph node ratio in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 135: 435-440 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25312398
- 13 Harter P, Sehouli J, Lorusso D. et al. A Randomized Trial of Lymphadenectomy in Patients with Advanced Ovarian Neoplasms. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 822-832 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30811909
- 14 Ferrandina G, Sallustio G, Fagotti A. et al. Role of CT scan-based and clinical evaluation in the preoperative prediction of optimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective trial. Br J Cancer 2009; 101: 1066-1073 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19738608
- 15 Suidan RS, Ramirez PT, Sarasohn DM. et al. A multicenter prospective trial evaluating the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and serum CA-125 to predict suboptimal cytoreduction at primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 134: 455-461 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25019568
- 16 Gemer O, Gdalevich M, Ravid M. et al. A multicenter validation of computerized tomography models as predictors of non- optimal primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009; 35: 1109-1112 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19329270
- 17 Prat J. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. FIGOʼs staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: abridged republication. J Gynecol Oncol 2015; 26: 87-89 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25872889
- 18 Camara O, Sehouli J. Controversies in the management of ovarian cancer–pros and cons for lymph node dissection in ovarian cancer. Anticancer Res 2009; 29: 2837-2843 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19596971
- 19 Trimbos B, Timmers P, Pecorelli S. et al. Surgical Staging and Treatment of Early Ovarian Cancer: Long-term Analysis From a Randomized Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 982-987 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20445161
- 20 Erdem B, Yüksel IT, Peker N. et al. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Lymph Node Metastasis in Clinical Stage I–II Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Oncol Res Treat 2018; 41: 444-448 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29975960
- 21 Maggioni A, Benedetti Panici P, DellʼAnna T. et al. Randomised study of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer macroscopically confined to the pelvis. Br J Cancer 2006; 95: 699-704 Online: http://www.nature.com/articles/6603323
- 22 Minig L, Heitz F, Cibula D. et al. Patterns of Lymph Node Metastases in Apparent Stage I Low-Grade Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Multicenter Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24: 2720-2726 Online: http://link.springer.com/10.1245/s10434-017-5919-y
- 23 Hacker NF, Valmadre S, Robertson G. Management of retroperitoneal lymph nodes in advanced ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008; 18: 7-10 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18336392
- 24 Ricciardi E, Baert T, Ataseven B. et al. Low-grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2018; 78: 972-976 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30364401
- 25 Plentl AA, Friedman EA. Lymphatic system of the female genitalia. The morphologic basis of oncologic diagnosis and therapy. Major Probl Obstet Gynecol 1971; 2: 1-223 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5162136
- 26 Scarabelli C, Gallo A, Zarrelli A. et al. Systematic Pelvic and Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy during Cytoreductive Surgery in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Potential Benefit on Survival. Gynecol Oncol 1995; 56: 328-337 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7705665
- 27 Berek JS. Lymph Node-Positive Stage IIIC Ovarian Cancer: A Separate Entity?. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009; 19: S18 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19955908
- 28 Rutten MJ, van de Vrie R, Bruining A. et al. Predicting Surgical Outcome in Patients With International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Stage III or IV Ovarian Cancer Using Computed Tomography. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015; 25: 407-415 Online: https://ijgc.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000368
- 29 Bristow RE, Duska LR, Lambrou NC. et al. A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Cancer 2000; 89: 1532-1540 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11013368
- 30 Dowdy SC, Mullany SA, Brandt KR. et al. The utility of computed tomography scans in predicting suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 101: 346-352 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15241833
- 31 Axtell AE, Lee MH, Bristow RE. et al. Multi-institutional reciprocal validation study of computed tomography predictors of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 384-389 Online: http://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2006.07.7800
- 32 Stashwick C, Post MD, Arruda JS. et al. Surgical Risk Score Predicts Suboptimal Debulking or a Major Perioperative Complication in Patients With Advanced Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21: 1422-1427 Online: https://ijgc.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1097/IGC.0b013e31822c7704
- 33 Paño B, Sebastià C, Ripoll E. et al. Pathways of lymphatic spread in gynecologic malignancies. Radiographics 2015; 35: 916-945 Online: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/rg.2015140086
- 34 Panici PB, Maggioni A, Hacker N. et al. Systematic aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy versus resection of bulky nodes only in optimally debulked advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 560-566 Online: http://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/97/8/560/2544193/Systematic-Aortic-and-Pelvic-Lymphadenectomy
- 35 Trimbos B, Timmers P, Pecorelli S. et al. Surgical staging and treatment of early ovarian cancer: Long-term analysis from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 982-987
- 36 Laasik M, Kemppainen J, Auranen A. et al. Behavior of FDG-avid supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes in PET/CT throughout primary therapy in advanced serous epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Cancer Imaging 2019; 19: 27 Online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6542004/
- 37 Vandecaveye V, Dresen R, De Keyzer F. Novel imaging techniques in gynaecological cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2017; 29: 335-342 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28594645
- 38 Liu B, Gao S, Li S. A Comprehensive Comparison of CT, MRI, Positron Emission Tomography or Positron Emission Tomography/CT, and Diffusion Weighted Imaging-MRI for Detecting the Lymph Nodes Metastases in Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis Based on 67 Studies. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2017; 82: 209-222 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28183074
- 39 Khiewvan B, Torigian DA, Emamzadehfard S. et al. An update on the role of PET/CT and PET/MRI in ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017; 44: 1079-1091 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28180966