Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 20, Issue 12, pp 2773–2780 | Cite as

ESUR guidelines: ovarian cancer staging and follow-up

  • Rosemarie Forstner
  • Evis Sala
  • Karen Kinkel
  • John A. Spencer
Urogenital

Abstract

Objective

To design clear guidelines for the staging and follow-up of patients with ovarian cancer, and to provide the radiologist with a framework for use in multidisciplinary conferences.

Methods

Guidelines for ovarian cancer staging and follow-up were defined by the female imaging subcommittee of the ESUR (European Society of Urogenital Radiology) based on the expert consensus of imaging protocols of 12 leading institutions and a critical review of the literature.

Results

Computed tomography (CT) with coverage of the base of the lungs to the inguinal region is regarded as the imaging technique of choice for preoperative staging. Critical diagnostic criteria are presented and the basis for a structured report for preoperative staging is outlined. Following primary treatment for ovarian cancer, clinical assessment and CA-125 are routinely used to monitor patients. For suspected recurrence, CT remains the imaging modality of choice, with positron emission tomography (PET)/CT emerging as the optimal imaging technique for suspected recurrence, particularly in patients with negative CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Conclusions

CT is the imaging modality of choice for preoperative staging and detection of recurrence in patients with ovarian cancer.

Keywords

Ovary cancer Ovary neoplasm Cancer staging Guidelines CT 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the following members of the female imaging subcommittee who contributed discussion of the guidelines and responded to a questionnaire about current practice in their institutions: C. Balleguier, M. Bazot, M.T. Cunha, F. Danza, B. Hamm, R. Kubik, G. Sallustio and A.C. Tsili.

References

  1. 1.
    Royal College of Radiologists (2007) Making the best use of clinical radiology services, 6th edn. Royal College of Radiologists, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spencer JA, Forstner R, Cunha TM, Kinkel K (2010) ESUR guidelines for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an algorithmic approach. Eur Radiol 20:25–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spencer JA (2005) A multidisciplinary approach to ovarian cancer at diagnosis. Br J Radiol 78:S94–S102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spencer JA, Forstner R, Hricak H (2008) Investigating women with suspected ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 108:262–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Togashi K (2003) Ovarian cancer: the role of US, CT and MRI. Eur Radiol 13(Suppl 4):L87–L104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vorgias G, Iavazzo C, Savvopoulos P et al (2009) Can the preoperative Ca-125 level predict optimal cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma?: a single institution cohort study. Gynecol Oncol 112:11–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forstner R (2007) Radiological staging of ovarian cancer: imaging findings and contribution of CT and MRI. Eur Radiol 17:3223–3235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG et al (2000) Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities-report from the Radiology Oncology Group. Radiology 215:761–767PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CMC 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 212:19–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomsen HS (2007) ESUR guideline: gadolinium-based contrast media and nephrogenic fibrosis. Eur Radiol 17:2692–2706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Low RN, Sebrechts CP, Barone RB, Muller W (2009) Diffusion-weighted MRI of peritoneal tumors: comparison with conventional MRI and surgical and histopathologic findings- a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:461–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spencer JA Swift SE, Wilkinson N, et al (2001) Peritoneal carcinomatosis: image guided peritoneal core biopsy for tumour type and patient management 221:173-177Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Griffin N, Grant LA, Freeman S et al (2009) Image guided biopsy in patients with suspected ovarian carcinoma: a safe and effective technique? Eur Radiol 19:230–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Tsuchida T et al (2004) The incremental benefits of FDG positron emission tomography over CT alone for the preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:227–233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:1912–1920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holloway BJ, Gore ME, A’Hern RP et al (1997) The significance of paracardiac lymph node enlargement in ovarian cancer. Clin Radiol 52:692–697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quayyum A, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC et al (2005) Role of CT and MRI in predicting optimal cytoreduction of newly diagnosed primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 96:301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim SH, Kim SH, Yang DM et al (2004) Unusual causes of tubo-ovarian abscess CT and MR imaging findings. Radiographics 24:1575–1589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pickhardt PJ, Bhalla S (2005) Unusual nonneoplastic peritoneal and subperitoneal conditions: CT findings. Radiographics 25:719–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA et al (2002) Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology 223:495–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Woodward PJ, Hosseinzadeh K, Saenger JS (2004) Radiologic staging of ovarian carcinoma with pathologic correlation. From the archives of the AFIP. Radiographics 24:225–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Akin O, Sala E, Chaya S et al (2008) Perihepatic metastases from ovarian cancer: sensitivity and specificity of CT for the detection of metastases with and those without liver parenchymal invasion. Radiology 248:511–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Young RH, Scully RE (2002) Metastatic tumors of the ovary. In: Kurmann RJ (ed) Blausteins’s pathology of the female genital tract, 5th edn. Springer, New York, pp 1063-1101Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Choi HJ, Lee JH, Kang S et al (2006) Contrast-enhanced CT for differentiation of ovarian metastasis from gastrointestinal tract cancer: stomach cancer versus colon cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:741–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gadducci A, Cosio S (2009) Surveillance of patients after initial treatment of ovarian cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 71:43–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Funt AS, Hricak HH (2003) Ovarian malignancies. Top Magn Reson Imaging 14:329–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gu P, Pan LL, Wu SQ et al (2009) CA-125, PET alone, PET-CT. CT and MRI in diagnosing recurrent ovarian carcinoma A systematic review Eur J Radiol 71:164–174Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Funt SA, Hricak H, Abu-Rustum N et al (2004) Role of CT in the management of recurrent ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:393–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rustin GJ, van der Burg ME, on behalf of MRC and EORTC collaborators (2009) A randomized trial in ovarian cancer (OC) of early treatment of relapse based on CA 125 level alone versus delayed treatment based on conventional clinical indicators (MRC OVO5/EORTC 55955 trials). J Clin Oncol 27(15 Suppl):5S, Abstract 1Google Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Dachmann AH, Visweswaran A, Battula R et al (2001) Role of chest CT in the follow-up of ovarian adenocarcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:701–705Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sella T, Rosenbaum E, Edelmann DZ et al (2001) Value of chest CT scans in routine ovarian carcinoma follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:857–859PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pannu HK, Bristow RE, Montz FJ et al (2003) Multidetector CT of peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer. Radiographics 23:687–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kopka L, Rogalla P, Hamm B (2002) Multislice CT of the abdomen—current indications and future trends. Rofo 174:273–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004) Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 233:649–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnson W, Taylor MB, Carrington BM, Bonington SC, Swindell R (2007) The value of hyoscine butylbromide in pelvic MRI. Clin Radiol 62:1087–1093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kanasaki Y et al (2008) Detection of peritoneal dissemination in gynaecological malignancy: evaluation by diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol 18:18–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Forstner R, Hricak H, Occhipinti K et al (1995) Ovarian cancer: staging with CT and MRI. Radiology 197:619–626PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones H et al (2000) FIGO classification and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynaecologic cancers: FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 70:209–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemarie Forstner
    • 1
  • Evis Sala
    • 2
  • Karen Kinkel
    • 3
  • John A. Spencer
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Landeskliniken SalzburgParacelsus Medical UniversitySalzburgAustria
  2. 2.University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Clinique des GrangettesGeneva University HospitalGenevaSwitzerland
  4. 4.St James’s University HospitalLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations