Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic Dilemmas in Ovarian Cancer

  • Review article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in terms of mortality rates of all cancers among women. According to GLOBOCAN 2020, the age adjusted global incidence was 6.6 per 100,000 women, and the mortality rate was 4.2 per 100,000 women. India, on the other hand, had an age adjusted incidence rate and mortality rate of 6.7 and 4.8 per 100,000 women, respectively (Sung et al. in CA Cancer J Clin. 71:209–249, 2021). Women of all ages are susceptible, although it is commonly diagnosed between the ages of 55 and 64 (Torre et al. in CA Cancer J Clin. 68:284–296, 2018). More than 75% of affected women are diagnosed at an advanced stage because early-stage disease is usually asymptomatic, and symptoms of late-stage disease are non-specific. Early diagnosis, when tumours are small and still confined to the ovaries, is the most important prognostic factor (Jayson et al. in Lancet. 384:1376–88, 2014) Despite advances in medical and surgical management of the disease, early diagnosis, appropriate diagnostic and tailored management of advanced ovarian cancer remains a challenge for healthcare providers. This review aims to summarize the current clinical dilemmas in ovarian cancer diagnosis and highlights areas in need of further research. The areas discussed in this article are screening and early detection of ovarian cancer, tumour markers and imaging modalities for the diagnosis and recent advances in histopathological classification and use of immunohistochemistry and molecular pathology for the correct diagnosis of the exact subtype of the disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Torre LA, Trabert B, DeSantis CE, Miller KD, Samimi G, Runowicz CD, Gaudet MM, Jemal A, Siegel RL. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):284–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Jayson GC, Kohn EC, Kitchener HC, Ledermann JA. Ovarian cancer. Lancet. 2014;384(9951):1376–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dochez V, Caillon H, Vaucel E, et al. Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review. J Ovarian Res. 2019;12:28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, Barry MJ, Davidson KW, et al. Screening for ovarian cancer: USpreventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;319:588–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenthal DN, Fraser L, Philpott S, Manchanda R, Badman P, Hadwin R, Evans DG, Eccles D, Skates SJ, Mackay J, Menon U, and Jacobs I. J Clin Oncol. 2013 31:15_suppl, 5507–5507

  7. Zeppernick F, Meinhold-Heerlein I. The new FIGO staging system for ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290:839–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bast RC, Feeney M, Lazarus H, et al. Reactivity of a monoclonal antibody with human ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Invest. 1981;68:1331–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Buamah P. Benign conditions associated with raised serum CA-125 concentration. J Surg Oncol. 2000;75:264–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Drapkin R, von Horsten HH, Lin Y, et al. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a secreted glycoprotein that is overexpressed by serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Res. 2005;65:2162–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA-125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;97:922–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Bourne T, et al. External validation of diagnostic models to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:815–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sayasneh A, Wynants L, Preisler J, et al. Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:2448–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Van Calster B, Valentin L, Froyman W, Landolfo, et al. Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: multicentre cohort study. BMJ. 2020;370:m2614.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, et al. A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:40–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaijser J, Van Belle V, Van Gorp T, et al. Prognostic value of serum HE4 levels and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm scores at the time of ovarian cancer diagnosis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:1173–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chudecka-Głaz A, Cymbaluk-Płoska A, Jastrzębska J, Menkiszak J. Can ROMA algorithm stratify ovarian tumor patients better when being based on specific age ranges instead of the premenopausal and postmenopausal status? Tumour Biol. 2016;37:8879–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Karlsen MA, Høgdall EVS, Christensen IJ, et al. A novel diagnostic index combining HE4, CA125 and age may improve triage of women with suspected ovarian cancer–An international multicenter study in women with an ovarian mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:640–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Anthoulakis C, Nikoloudis N. Pelvic MRI as the “gold standard” in the subsequent evaluation of ultrasound-indeterminate adnexal lesions: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(3):661–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Forstner R, Thomassin-Naggara I, Cunha TM, et al. ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an update. EurRadiol. 2017;27(6):2248–57.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thomassin-Naggara I, Aubert E, Rockall A, et al. Adnexal masses: development and preliminary validation of an MR imaging scoring system. Radiology. 2013;267(2):432–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sasaguri K, Yamaguchi K, Nakazono T, et al. External validation of ADNEX MR SCORING system: a single-centre retrospective study. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(2):131–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thomassin-Naggara I, Poncelet E, Jalaguier-Coudray A, et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting data system magnetic resonance imaging (O-RADS MRI) score for risk stratification of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1): e1919896.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kobayashi H, Yamada Y, Sado T, et al. A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicenter study in Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(3):414–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, Johnson CC, PLCO Project Team. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, et al. Ovarian cancer population screening and mortality after long-term follow-up in the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10290):2182–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosenthal AN, Fraser LSM, Philpot S, et al. Evidence of stage shift in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during phase II of the United Kingdom Familial Ovarian cancer screening study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1411–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrison ML, Jameson C, Gore ME. Mucinous ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(2):209–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhu J, Jiang L, Wen H, Bi R, Wu X, Ju X. Prognostic value of serum CA19-9 and perioperative CA-125 levels in ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(6):1108–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Grandi G, Perrone AM, Toss A, et al. The generally low sensitivity of CA 125 for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer diagnosis increases for endometrioid histotype. Minerva Med. 2020;111(2):133–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Koulouris CR, Penson RT. Ovarian stromal and germ cell tumors. Semin Oncol. 2009;36:126–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Colombo N, Peiretti M, Garbi A, Carinelli S, Marini C, Sessa C. ESMO guidelines working group: non-epithelial ovarian cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:20–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Barbosa A, Peixoto A, Pinto P, Pinheiro M, Teixeira MR. Potential clinical applications of circulating cell-free DNA in ovarian cancer patients. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2018;20: e6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Giannopoulou L, Kasimir-Bauer S, Lianidou ES. Liquid biopsy in ovarian cancer: recent advances on circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;56:186–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Guo YX, Neoh KH, Chang XH, Sun Y, Cheng HY, Ye X, Ma RQ, Han RPS, Cui H. Diagnostic value of HE4+ circulating tumor cells in patients with suspicious ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2018;9:7522–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhou Q, Li W, Leng B, Zheng W, He Z, Zuo M, Chen A. Circulating cell free DNA as the diagnostic marker for ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0155495.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Timmerman D, Planchamp F, Bourne T, Landolfo C, du Bois A, Chiva L, Cibula D, Concin N, Fischerova D, Froyman W, Gallardo G, Lemley B, Loft A, Mereu L, Morice P, Querleu D, Testa AC, Vergote I, Vandecaveye V, Scambia G, Fotopoulou C. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE consensus statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol. 2021;58:148–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA, et al. Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology. 2002;223:495–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Franiel T, Diederichs G, Engelken F, Elgeti T, Rost J, Rogalla P. Multi-detector CT in peritoneal carcinomatosis: diagnostic role of thin slices and multiplanar reconstructions. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34:49–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Klumpp BD, Aschoff P, Schwenzer N, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with surgical and histopathologic findings. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37:834–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shivakumarswamy U, Arakeri SU, Karigowdar MH, B,. Diagnostic utility of the cell block method versus the conventional smear study in pleural fluid cytology. J Cytol. 2012;29(1):11–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Bilgin T, Karabay A, Dolar E, et al. Peritoneal tuberculosis with pelvic abdominal mass, ascites and elevated CA 125 mimicking advanced ovarian carcinoma: a series of 10 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2001;11(4):290–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Oge T, Ozalp SS, Yalcin OT, et al. Peritoneal tuberculosis mimicking ovarian cancer. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprod Biol. 2012;2012(162):105–8.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sanai FM, Bzeizi KI. Systematic review: tuberculous peritonitis—Presenting features, diagnostic strategies and treatment. Aliment PharmacolTher. 2005;22(8):685–700.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. WHO. Female Genital Tumours. 5th ed. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Lyon, France: 2020. Classification of Tumours Editorial Board.

  46. Singer G, Oldt R, Cohen Y, Wang BG, Sidransky D, Kurman RJ, Shih Ie M. Mutations in BRAF and KRAS characterize the development of low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:484–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Parra-Herran C, Lerner-Ellis J, Xu B, Khalouei S, Bassiouny D, Cesari M, Ismiil N, Nofech-Mozes S. Molecular-based classification algorithm for endometrial carcinoma categorizes ovarian endometrioid carcinoma into prognostically significant groups. Mod Pathol. 2017;30:1748–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tan DS, Iravani M, McCluggage WG, Lambros MB, Milanezi F, Mackay A, Gourley C, Geyer FC, Vatcheva R, Millar J, et al. Genomic analysis reveals the molecular heterogeneity of ovarian clear cell carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:1521–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rekhi B, George S, Madur B, Chinoy RF, Dikshit R, Maheshwari A. Clinicopathological features and the value of differential Cytokeratin 7 and 20 expressions in resolving diagnostic dilemmas of ovarian involvement by colorectal adenocarcinoma and vice-versa. DiagnPathol. 2008;3:39.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cathro HP, Stoler MH. The utility of calretinin, inhibin and WT1 immunohistochemical staining in the differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors. Hum Pathol. 2005;36:195–201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Zynger DL, McCallum JC, Luan C, Chou PM, Yang XJ. Glypican 3 has a higher sensitivity than alpha-fetoprotein for testicular and ovarian yolk sac tumour: immunohistochemical investigation with analysis of histological growth patterns. Histopathology. 2010;56:750–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, India

    Subhashree Rout & Jaydip Bhaumik

  2. Department of Histopathology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, India

    Divya Midha & Geetashree Mukherjee

Authors
  1. Subhashree Rout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Divya Midha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Geetashree Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jaydip Bhaumik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaydip Bhaumik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 1912 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rout, S., Midha, D., Mukherjee, G. et al. Diagnostic Dilemmas in Ovarian Cancer. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 22, 3 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-023-00767-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-023-00767-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation