BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynaecological cancer in developed countries. Surgery and chemotherapy are considered its mainstay of treatment and the completeness of surgery is a major prognostic factor for survival in these women. Currently, computed tomography (CT) is used to preoperatively assess tumour resectability. If considered feasible, women will be scheduled for primary debulking surgery (i.e. surgical efforts to remove the bulk of tumour with the aim of leaving no visible (macroscopic) tumour). If primary debulking is not considered feasible (i.e. the tumour load is too extensive), women will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce tumour load and subsequently undergo (interval) surgery. However, CT is imperfect in assessing tumour resectability, so additional imaging modalities can be considered to optimise treatment selection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of fluorodeoxyglucose-18 (FDG) PET/CT, conventional and diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI as replacement or add-on to abdominal CT, for assessing tumour resectability at primary debulking surgery in women with stage III to IV epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (OVID) for potential eligible studies (1946 to 23 February 2017). Additionally, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO-ICTRP and the reference list of all relevant studies were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Diagnostic accuracy studies addressing the accuracy of preoperative FDG-PET/CT, conventional or DW-MRI on assessing tumour resectability in women with advanced stage (III to IV) epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer who are scheduled to undergo primary debulking surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance and inclusion, extracted data and performed methodological quality assessment using QUADAS-2. The limited number of studies did not permit meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies (544 participants) were included in the analysis. All studies performed the index test as replacement of abdominal CT. Two studies (366 participants) addressed the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease of any size (> 0 cm) with sensitivities of 1.0 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.0) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73) and specificities of 1.0 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.0) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.93), respectively (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies (178 participants) investigated MRI for different target conditions, of which two investigated DW-MRI and one conventional MRI. The first study showed that DW-MRI determines incomplete debulking with residual disease of any size with a sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.99) and a specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00) (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). For abdominal CT, the sensitivity for assessing incomplete debulking was 0.66 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.78) and the specificity 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.87) (low- and low-certainty evidence). The second study reported a sensitivity of DW-MRI of 0.75 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.97) and a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.00) (very low-certainty evidence) for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease > 1 cm. In the last study, the sensitivity for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease of > 2 cm on conventional MRI was 0.91 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.00) and the specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.00) (very low-certainty evidence). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low to moderate (according to GRADE), mainly due to small sample sizes and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies suggested a high specificity and moderate sensitivity for FDG-PET/CT and MRI to assess macroscopic incomplete debulking. However, the certainty of the evidence was insufficient to advise routine addition of FDG-PET/CT or MRI to clinical practice..In a research setting, adding an alternative imaging method could be considered for women identified as suitable for primary debulking by abdominal CT, in an attempt to filter out false-negatives (i.e. debulking, feasible based on abdominal CT, unfeasible at actual surgery).
BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynaecological cancer in developed countries. Surgery and chemotherapy are considered its mainstay of treatment and the completeness of surgery is a major prognostic factor for survival in these women. Currently, computed tomography (CT) is used to preoperatively assess tumour resectability. If considered feasible, women will be scheduled for primary debulking surgery (i.e. surgical efforts to remove the bulk of tumour with the aim of leaving no visible (macroscopic) tumour). If primary debulking is not considered feasible (i.e. the tumour load is too extensive), women will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce tumour load and subsequently undergo (interval) surgery. However, CT is imperfect in assessing tumour resectability, so additional imaging modalities can be considered to optimise treatment selection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of fluorodeoxyglucose-18 (FDG) PET/CT, conventional and diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI as replacement or add-on to abdominal CT, for assessing tumour resectability at primary debulking surgery in women with stage III to IV epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (OVID) for potential eligible studies (1946 to 23 February 2017). Additionally, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO-ICTRP and the reference list of all relevant studies were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Diagnostic accuracy studies addressing the accuracy of preoperative FDG-PET/CT, conventional or DW-MRI on assessing tumour resectability in women with advanced stage (III to IV) epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer who are scheduled to undergo primary debulking surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance and inclusion, extracted data and performed methodological quality assessment using QUADAS-2. The limited number of studies did not permit meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies (544 participants) were included in the analysis. All studies performed the index test as replacement of abdominal CT. Two studies (366 participants) addressed the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease of any size (> 0 cm) with sensitivities of 1.0 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.0) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73) and specificities of 1.0 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.0) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.93), respectively (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies (178 participants) investigated MRI for different target conditions, of which two investigated DW-MRI and one conventional MRI. The first study showed that DW-MRI determines incomplete debulking with residual disease of any size with a sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.99) and a specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00) (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). For abdominal CT, the sensitivity for assessing incomplete debulking was 0.66 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.78) and the specificity 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.87) (low- and low-certainty evidence). The second study reported a sensitivity of DW-MRI of 0.75 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.97) and a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.00) (very low-certainty evidence) for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease > 1 cm. In the last study, the sensitivity for assessing incomplete debulking with residual disease of > 2 cm on conventional MRI was 0.91 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.00) and the specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.00) (very low-certainty evidence). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low to moderate (according to GRADE), mainly due to small sample sizes and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies suggested a high specificity and moderate sensitivity for FDG-PET/CT and MRI to assess macroscopic incomplete debulking. However, the certainty of the evidence was insufficient to advise routine addition of FDG-PET/CT or MRI to clinical practice..In a research setting, adding an alternative imaging method could be considered for women identified as suitable for primary debulking by abdominal CT, in an attempt to filter out false-negatives (i.e. debulking, feasible based on abdominal CT, unfeasible at actual surgery).
Authors: Johanna Hynninen; Jukka Kemppainen; Maija Lavonius; Johanna Virtanen; Jaakko Matomäki; Sinikka Oksa; Olli Carpén; Seija Grénman; Marko Seppänen; Annika Auranen Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Holger J Schünemann; A Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Jan Brozek; Paul Glasziou; Roman Jaeschke; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Regina Kunz; Jonathan Craig; Victor M Montori; Patrick Bossuyt; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-05-17
Authors: Aliya Qayyum; Fergus V Coakley; Antonio C Westphalen; Hedvig Hricak; William T Okuno; Bethan Powell Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Andreas du Bois; Alexander Reuss; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Philipp Harter; Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Jacobus Pfisterer Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S Risum; C Høgdall; A Loft; A K Berthelsen; E Høgdall; L Nedergaard; L Lundvall; S A Engelholm Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-12-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Roberto C Delgado Bolton; Nicolas Aide; Patrick M Colletti; Annamaria Ferrero; Diana Paez; Andrea Skanjeti; Francesco Giammarile Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 9.236