Imaging strategy in recurrent ovarian cancer: a practical review
Ovarian cancer is one of the most aggressive gynaecologic malignancies in women worldwide. The lack of proper screening programs and the characteristic abdominal spreading with minimal clinical symptoms give rise of its high lethality. Most patients show advanced disease at diagnosis and have a poor prognosis. The surveillance of ovarian cancer patients after initial treatment is a challenging question in clinical practice and there is no consensus in literature about the most appropriate follow-up strategy for these women. The role of Imaging has become increasingly important, allowing to properly monitor patients, distinguishing the different relapse patterns, thus guiding the correct management and therapy. In this review, we report and analyze the scientific evidence about the role of the different imaging modalities now available in the follow-up strategy and management of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer patients with recurrent disease.
KeywordsRecurrent ovarian cancer Ovarian cancer follow-up Recurrent ovarian cancer imaging US CT MRI
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 8.Kimio U (2009) Treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer—at first relapse. J Oncol 2010:497429Google Scholar
- 10.Pignata S, Cannella L, Leopardo D, Bruni GS, Facchini G (2011) Pisano C (2011) Follow-up with CA125 after primary therapy of advanced ovarian cancer: in favor of continuing to prescribe CA125 during follow-up. Ann Oncol 22:viii40–viii44. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr470 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CM, et al. (1999) Diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer: comparative values of Doppler and conventional US, CT, and MR imaging correlated with surgery and histopathologic analysis—report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 212:19–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Espada M, Garcia-Flores JR, Jimenez M, et al. (2013) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraabdominal sites of implants to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Eur Radiol 23(2636):e42Google Scholar
- 49.Suppiah S, Chang WL, Hassan HA, et al. (2017) Systematic review on the accuracy of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging in the management of ovarian cancer: is functional information really needed? World J Nucl Med 16:176–185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 51.Yuan Y, Gu ZX, Tao XF, Liu SY (2012) Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 81:1002–1006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 58.Schwenzer NF, Schmidt H, Gatidis S, et al. (2014) Measurement of apparent diffusion coefficient with simultaneous MR/positron emission tomography in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis: comparison with 18F-FDG-PET. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:1121–1128. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24497 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 64.Evangelista L, Palma MD, Gregianin M, et al. (2015) Diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and its correlation with serum cancer antigen-125 (CA125) in a large cohort of ovarian cancer patients. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 16:137–144CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar