Evaluation of Computed Tomography Scan and CA 125 Response in Predicting Operability in Advanced Ovarian Cancer and Assessing Survival Outcome in Interval Cytoreductive Surgery

  • P. Rema
  • Elizabeth Reshmi John
  • Suchetha Samabasivan
  • Anil Prahladan
  • Preethi George
  • J. Siva Ranjith
  • Shaji Thomas
Original Article


The study aims at the prediction of optimal cytoreduction (OCR) in patients undergoing interval cytoreduction (ICR) in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) based on CT imaging and CA 125 values and assessing the survival pattern of these patients after ICR. This is a prospective observational study of patients with stage III C ovarian cancer who underwent ICR in our institution after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). All consecutive patients operated from April 2016 to October 2017 were included in the study. From their medical records, their demographic details and clinical variables were recorded. The CA 125 value and CT scan findings before and after chemotherapy were documented. A Bristow’s predictive score (BS) was calculated based on the radiological parameters. After ICR, the outcome of the surgery was documented. Optimal cytoreduction (OCR) was defined as no gross residual disease after surgery. The surgical outcome was correlated with the CA 125 difference pre and post chemotherapy and Bristow’s predictive score pre and post chemotherapy. The patients were followed up and their survival at 6 and 12 months was assessed. Univariate and multivariate analysis was done to identify factors predicting OCR. 51 patients were included in the study. Age group of the women ranged from 31 to 74 years with a mean of 52 years. Majority of the patients (70.6%) were postmenopausal. Of the 51 women, OCR could be achieved in 31 patients (60.8%). Post-chemotherapy, 36 patients had elevated CA125 above baseline of which 50% attained OCR. Forty six patients had CA 125 response post chemotherapy of which 67.4% attained OCR. Forty five patients had reduction in Bristow Score compared to the pre chemo values of which 64.4% attained OCR which was not found to be statistically significant. Overall survival was 100% survival at 6 months and 92.8% at 12 months in those who achieved OCR. Those with residual disease 0.1–1 cm had survival of 74.1% at 6 and 12 months. Those with residual disease > 1 cm had a survival of 50% at 6 and 12 months. CA125 response has a significant role in predicting OCR while CT evaluation using the BS was not useful in predicting OCR during ICR for AEOC.


Ovarian cancer CA 125antigen, CT scan Cytoreduction surgical procedure Survival analysis 



I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Dr. P Rema, Dr. Anil Prahladan and Dr. Suchetha Jyothish for providing their invaluable guidance, comments and suggestions throughout the conduct of this study. I would specially thank Dr. Preethi George for her assistance in the data analysis. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Aswathy and Dr. Vijayshanti for their help during the preparation of the sample and data collection.


This work described has not been published before and it is not under consideration for publication anywhere. Its publication has been approved by all its authors.

Authors’ Contributions

Conceptualization: Elizabeth Reshmi John,P Rema.

Methodology: P Rema, Elizabeth Reshmi John, Anil Prahladan, Preethi George.

Software: Preethi George.

Validation: Preethi George.

Formal Analysis: Elizabeth Reshmi John.

Investigation: P Rema, Elizabeth Reshmi John.

Resources: P Rema, SuchethaSambasivan, Sivaranjith J, Anil Prahladan, Preethi George.

Data Curation: Elizabeth Reshmi John, Aswathy G Nath, Vijayshanthi J.

Writing—original draft: Elizabeth Reshmi John, P Rema.

Writing—review and editing: P Rema, SuchethaSambasivan, Sivaranjith J.

Visualisation: P Rema, SuchethaSambasivan, Sivaranjith J.

Supervision: P Rema, SuchethaSambasivan, Sivaranjith J, AnilPrahladan, Preethi George.

Project Administration: P Rema.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Aletti GD, Gostout BS, Podratz KC et al (2006) Ovarian cancer surgical resectability: relative impact of disease, patient status, and surgeon. GynecolOncol 100:33–37Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bristow RE, Duska LR, Lambrou NC, Fishman EK, O'Neill MJ, Trimble EL et al (2000) A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Cancer 89:1532–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Gynaecological Cancer Group; NCIC Clinical Trials Group et al (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 363(10):943–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M, Jayson GC, Kitchener H, Lopes T et al (2015) Primarychemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 386(9990):249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stuart GCE, Kitchener H, Bacon M, duBois A, Friedlander M, Ledermann J et al (2011) Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus statement on clinical trials in ovarian cancer report from the Fourth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:750Y755Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chi DS, Venkatraman ES, Masson V, Hoskins WJ (2000) The ability of preoperative serum CA-125 to predict optimal primary tumor cytoreduction in stage III epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 77:227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arits AH, Stoot JE, Botterweck AA, Roumen FJ, Voogd AC (2008) Preoperative serum CA125 levels do not predict suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer.15. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18(4):621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Obeidat B, Latimer J, Crawford R (2004) Can optimal primary cytoreduction be predicted in advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer? Role of preoperative serum CA-125 level. Gynecol Obstet Investig 57(3):153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coakley FV (2002) Staging ovarian cancer: role of imaging. Radiol Clin N Am 40:609–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA, Pothuri B, Venkatraman E, Chi D, Bergman A, Hricak H (2002) Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology 223:495–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, Hricak H, Okuno WT, Powell B (2005) Role of CT and MR imaging in predicting optimal cytoreduction of newly diagnosed primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 96(2):301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nelson BE, Rosenfield AT, Schwartz PE (1993) Preoperative abdominopelvic computed tomographic prediction of optimal cytoreduction in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 11:166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forstner R, Hricak H, Occhipinti KA, Powell CB, Frankel SD, Stern JL (1995) Ovarian cancer: staging with CT and MR imaging. Radiology 197:619–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer JI, Kennedy AW, Friedman R, Ayoub A, Zepp RC (1995) Ovarian carcinoma: value of CT in predicting success of debulking surgery. Am J Roentgenol 165:875–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ (2002) Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 20(5):1248–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang SJ, Bristow RE (2012) RyuHS. Impact of complete cytoreduction leaving no gross residual disease associated with radical cytoreductive surgical procedures on survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19(13):4059–4067. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baldwin LA, Huang B, Miller RW, Tucker T, Goodrich ST, Podzielinski I et al (2012) Tenyear relative survival for epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 120(3):612–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyRegional Cancer CentreThiruvanathapuramIndia
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyAzeezia Medical College HospitalKeralaIndia
  3. 3.Department of RadiodiagnosisRegional Cancer CentreThiruvanathapuramIndia
  4. 4.Department of BiostatisticsRegional Cancer CentreThiruvanathapuramIndia
  5. 5.ThiruvananthapuramIndia

Personalised recommendations