BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) scans of the abdomen and pelvis may predict which patients with ovarian carcinoma can undergo optimal cytoreduction at primary surgery. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients with ovarian carcinoma had optimal cytoreduction rates ranging from 50-60%. The authors sought to determine whether these findings applied to a surgical practice with a higher rate of optimal debulking. A predictive model using CT scanning and CA 125 values would allow the authors to determine which patients would be more appropriately treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Preoperative CT scans for patients with Stage III/IV ovarian carcinoma (according to the staging system of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) who were treated between 1996 and 2001 were evaluated retrospectively by 2 radiologists for 17 criteria evaluating the extent of disease. Clinical data were extracted from medical records. Residual tumors measuring > or = 1 cm were considered suboptimal. Logistic regression was used to evaluate which criteria correlated with optimal cytoreduction. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were identified retrospectively who met entry criteria and had preoperative CT scans of sufficient diagnostic quality. Sixty-two patients (71%) received optimal cytoreductive surgery and 45 (52%) required aggressive surgical procedures. In a multivariate model, only diffuse peritoneal thickening (DPT) independently predicted suboptimal surgical resection (P = 0.016). However, a model using both DPT and ascites on most CT scans had a positive predictive value of 68% and a sensitivity of 52% for predicting suboptimal cytoreduction. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of DPT and large-volume ascites was associated with a very low rate of optimal cytoreduction (32%) in a surgical practice. These patients may be more appropriately treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical cytoreduction. Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) scans of the abdomen and pelvis may predict which patients with ovarian carcinoma can undergo optimal cytoreduction at primary surgery. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients with ovarian carcinoma had optimal cytoreduction rates ranging from 50-60%. The authors sought to determine whether these findings applied to a surgical practice with a higher rate of optimal debulking. A predictive model using CT scanning and CA 125 values would allow the authors to determine which patients would be more appropriately treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Preoperative CT scans for patients with Stage III/IV ovarian carcinoma (according to the staging system of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) who were treated between 1996 and 2001 were evaluated retrospectively by 2 radiologists for 17 criteria evaluating the extent of disease. Clinical data were extracted from medical records. Residual tumors measuring > or = 1 cm were considered suboptimal. Logistic regression was used to evaluate which criteria correlated with optimal cytoreduction. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were identified retrospectively who met entry criteria and had preoperative CT scans of sufficient diagnostic quality. Sixty-two patients (71%) received optimal cytoreductive surgery and 45 (52%) required aggressive surgical procedures. In a multivariate model, only diffuse peritoneal thickening (DPT) independently predicted suboptimal surgical resection (P = 0.016). However, a model using both DPT and ascites on most CT scans had a positive predictive value of 68% and a sensitivity of 52% for predicting suboptimal cytoreduction. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of DPT and large-volume ascites was associated with a very low rate of optimal cytoreduction (32%) in a surgical practice. These patients may be more appropriately treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical cytoreduction. Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Neil S Horowitz; G Larry Maxwell; Austin Miller; Chad A Hamilton; Bunja Rungruang; Noah Rodriguez; Scott D Richard; Thomas C Krivak; Jeffrey M Fowler; David G Mutch; Linda Van Le; Roger B Lee; Peter Argenta; David Bender; Krishnansu S Tewari; David Gershenson; James J Java; Michael A Bookman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Natalia Rodriguez Gómez-Hidalgo; Bertha Alejandra Martinez-Cannon; Alpa M Nick; Karen H Lu; Anil K Sood; Robert L Coleman; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Stephanie Nougaret; Yulia Lakhman; Mithat Gönen; Debra A Goldman; Maura Miccò; Melvin D'Anastasi; Sarah A Johnson; Krishna Juluru; Angela G Arnold; Ramon E Sosa; Robert A Soslow; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Hedvig Hricak; Noah D Kauff; Evis Sala Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthew D Risi; Andrew R Rouse; Setsuko K Chambers; Kenneth D Hatch; Wenxin Zheng; Arthur F Gmitro Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: G Ferrandina; G Sallustio; A Fagotti; G Vizzielli; A Paglia; E Cucci; A Margariti; L Aquilani; G Garganese; G Scambia Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 7.640