Management Driven Structured Reporting in Ovarian Cancer

Abstract

Since majority (80%) of ovarian cancer patients present at an advanced stage, imaging performed on these patients have numerous findings. The combination of multiple findings on imaging, complexity of anatomical structures which are involved in ovarian cancer, and the need to perceive certain subtle imaging features which would impact management often makes it challenging to systematically review images of these patients. Similarly, it is difficult to effectively communicate these findings in radiology reports. Structured reporting that is geared toward clinical decision-making has been an area of recognized need. An understanding of the review areas, which aid clinical decision-making in a multidisciplinary team setting at our institution led us to the proposed structured reporting template for ovarian cancer. Through this review, the authors would like to share this reporting template with examples.

Keywords

ovarian cancer - structured reporting - computed tomography - magnetic imaging resonance - cross-sectional imaging

Publication History

Article published online:
05 December 2019

• References

• 1 Matz M, Coleman MP, Sant M. et al; & the CONCORD Working Group. The histology of ovarian cancer: worldwide distribution and implications for international survival comparisons (CONCORD-2). Gynecol Oncol 2017; 144 (02) 405-413
• 2 Saida T, Tanaka YO, Matsumoto K, Satoh T, Yoshikawa H, Minami M. Revised FIGO staging system for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: important implications for radiologists. Jpn J Radiol 2016; 34 (02) 117-124
• 3 Forstner R, Meissnitzer M, Cunha TM. Update on imaging of ovarian cancer. Curr Radiol Rep 2016; 4: 31
• 4 Lalwani N, Prasad SR, Vikram R, Shanbhogue AK, Huettner PC, Fasih N. Histologic, molecular, and cytogenetic features of ovarian cancers: implications for diagnosis and treatment. Radiographics 2011; 31 (03) 625-646
• 5 Kurman RJ, Shih IeM. The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34 (03) 433-443
• 6 Prat J, D’Angelo E, Espinosa I. Ovarian carcinomas: at least five different diseases with distinct histological features and molecular genetics. Hum Pathol 2018; 80: 11-27
• 7 Prat J. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 124 (01) 1-5
• 8 Wright JD, Chen L, Tergas AI. et al. Trends in relative survival for ovarian cancer from 1975 to 2011. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125 (06) 1345-1352
• 9 Piver MS, Barlow JJ, Lele SB. Incidence of subclinical metastasis in stage I and II ovarian carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52 (01) 100-104
• 10 Tognon G, Carnazza M, Ragnoli M. et al. Prognostic factors in early-stage ovarian cancer. Ecancermedicalscience 2013; 7: 325
• 11 Maggioni A, Benedetti Panici P, Dell’Anna T. et al. Randomised study of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer macroscopically confined to the pelvis. Br J Cancer 2006; 95 (06) 699-704
• 12 Chang S-J, Hodeib M, Chang J, Bristow RE. Survival impact of complete cytoreduction to no gross residual disease for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 130 (03) 493-498
• 13 Gerestein CG, Nieuwenhuyzen-de Boer GM, Eijkemans MJ, Kooi GS, Burger CW. Prediction of 30-day morbidity after primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced stage ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46 (01) 102-109
• 14 Chi DS, Zivanovic O, Levinson KL. et al. The incidence of major complications after the performance of extensive upper abdominal surgical procedures during primary cytoreduction of advanced ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 119 (01) 38-42
• 15 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 (07) 1532-1540
• 16 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 (03) 455-461
• 17 Nelson BE, Rosenfield AT, Schwartz PE. Preoperative abdominopelvic computed tomographic prediction of optimal cytoreduction in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11 (01) 166-172
• 18 Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, Hricak H, Okuno WT, Powell B. Role of CT and MR imaging in predicting optimal cytoreduction of newly diagnosed primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 96 (02) 301-306
• 19 Dowdy SC, Mullany SA, Brandt KR, Huppert BJ, Cliby WA. The utility of computed tomography scans in predicting suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 101 (02) 346-352
• 20 Chandramohan A, Thrower A, Smith SA, Shah N, Moran B. “PAUSE”: a method for communicating radiological extent of peritoneal malignancy. Clin Radiol 2017; 72 (11) 972-980
• 21 Chandramohan A, Thrower A, Shah N, Mohamed F. Radiological predictors of complete cytoreduction in 59 patients with peritoneal mesothelioma treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy at a UK referral centre. Br J Radiol 2017; 90 (1079) 20170361-20170361
• 22 Borley J, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, Yazbek J. et al. Radiological predictors of cytoreductive outcomes in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. BJOG 2015; 122 (06) 843-849
• 23 Ghisoni E, Katsaros D, Maggiorotto F. et al. A predictive score for optimal cytoreduction at interval debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer: a two- centers experience. J Ovarian Res 2018; 11 (01) 42
• 24 Kang SK, Reinhold C, Atri M. et al. Expert Panel on Women’s Imaging. ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® Staging and Follow-Up of Ovarian Cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2018; 15 (5S, Supplement): S198-S207
• 25 Sahdev A. CT in ovarian cancer staging: how to review and report with emphasis on abdominal and pelvic disease for surgical planning. Cancer Imaging 2016; 16 (01) 19
• 26 Castellani F, Nganga EC, Dumas L, Banerjee S, Rockall AG. Imaging in the pre-operative staging of ovarian cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44 (02) 685-696
• 27 Lee JH, Jeong YK, Park JK, Hwang JC. “Ovarian vascular pedicle” sign revealing organ of origin of a pelvic mass lesion on helical CT. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181 (01) 131-137
• 28 Asayama Y, Yoshimitsu K, Aibe H. et al. MDCT of the gonadal veins in females with large pelvic masses: value in differentiating ovarian versus uterine origin. AJR. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186 (02) 440-448
• 29 Ha HK, Baek SY, Kim SH, Kim HH, Chung EC, Yeon KM. Krukenberg’s tumor of the ovary: MR imaging features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164 (06) 1435-1439
• 30 Jung SE, Lee JM, Rha SE, Byun JY, Jung JI, Hahn ST.. CT and MR imaging of ovarian tumors with emphasis on differential diagnosis. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc. 2002; 22 (06) 1305-1325
• 31 Al-Agha OM, Nicastri AD. An in-depth look at Krukenberg tumor: an overview. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130 (11) 1725-1730
• 32 Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis.. In: Sugarbaker PH. ed. Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Principles of Management. Boston, MA: Springer US; 1996: 359-74
• 33 Shin W, Park S-Y, Lim MC. Peritoneal cancer index in ovarian cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 2019; 30 (01) e14
• 34 Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA. et al. Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology 2002; 223 (02) 495-499
• 35 Metser U, Jones C, Jacks LM, Bernardini MQ, Ferguson S. Identification and quantification of peritoneal metastases in patients with ovarian cancer with multidetector computed tomography: correlation with surgery and surgical outcome. Int J Gynecol. Cancer 2011; 21 (08) 1391-1398