Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The special role of ultrasound for screening, staging and surveillance of malignant ovarian tumors: distinction from other methods of diagnostic imaging

  • Review
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 29 November 2014

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is the most aggressive gynecologic malignancy, with a 5-year survival rate ranging around 40 %. A crucial factor influencing the prognosis is early detection of a suspicious mass and referral to a gynecologic oncology center for further diagnosis, staging and debulking surgery. Here, we present the different imaging methods ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging, computer tomography (CT) and 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET)/CT that are used for the characterization, diagnosis, staging and surveillance of ovarian cancer. In this review, we focus on US and discuss in detail the advantages and the limitations, as well as the appropriate indications for each of the individual imaging techniques.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Autier P, Boniol M, Heanue M, Colombet M, Boyle P (2007) Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol 18(3):581–592

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alsop K, Fereday S, Meldrum C, deFazio A, Emmanuel C, George J, Dobrovic A, Birrer MJ, Webb PM, Stewart C, Friedlander M, Fox S, Bowtell D, Mitchell G (2012) BRCA mutation frequency and patterns of treatment response in BRCA mutation-positive women with ovarian cancer: a report from the Australian ovarian cancer study group. J Clin Oncol 30(21):2654–2656

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Earle CC, Schrag D, Neville BA, Yabroff KR, Topor M, Fahey A, Trimble EL, Bodurka DC, Bristow RE, Carney M, Warren JL (2006) Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(3):172–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Engelen MJ, van der Zee AG, de Vries EG, Willemse PH (2006) Debulking surgery for ovarian epithelial cancer performed by a gynaecological oncologist improved survival compared with less specialised surgeons. Cancer Treat Rev 32(4):320–323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Woo YL, Kyrgiou M, Bryant A, Everett T, Dickinson HO (2012) Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancers––a Cochrane systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 126(2):286–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Valentin L, Ameye L, Testa A, Lécuru F, Bernard JP, Paladini D, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D (2006) Ultrasound characteristics of different types of adnexal malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 102(1):41–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sharma A, Apostolidou S, Burnell M, Campbell S, Habib M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Amso N, Seif MW et al (2012) Risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women with ultrasound-detected ovarian masses: a prospective cohort study within the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40(3):338–344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Verrelst H, Vergote I, International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group (2000) Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the international ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 16(5):500–505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Van Holsbeke C, Paladini D, Van Calster B, Vergote I, Van Huffel S, Valentin L (2008) Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31(6):681–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BW (2009) The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systemic review. Obstet Gynecol 113(2 Pt 1):384–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG (1990) A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynecol 97(10):922–929

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chia YN, Marsden DE, Robertson G, Hacker NF (2008) Triage of ovarian masses. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 48(3):322–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ferrazzi E, Ameye L, Konstantinovic ML, Van Calster B, Collins WP, Vergote I, Van Huffel S, Valentin L (2005) Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the international ovarian tumor analysis group. J Clin Oncol 23(34):8794–8801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Valentin L, Hagen B, Tingulstad S, Eik-Nes S (2001) Comparison of ‘pattern recognition’ and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18(4):357–365

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Bourne T, Ajossa S, Testa AC, Guerriero S, Fruscio R, Lissoni AA, Czerkierdowski A, Savelli L, Van Huffel S, Valentin L, Timmerman D (2012) External validation of diagnostic models to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses. Clin Cancer Res 18(3):815–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Valentin L, McIndoe A, Ghaem-Maghami S, Testa AC, Vergote I, Bourne T (2012) Triaging women with ovarian masses for surgery: observational diagnostic study to compare RCOG guidelines with an international ovarian tumour analysis (IOTA) group protocol. BJOG 119(6):662–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, DiSilvestro P, Miller MC, Allard WJ, Gajewski W, Kurman R, Bast RC Jr, Skates SJ (2009) A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 112(1):40–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Urban N, Thorpe JD, Bergan LA, Forrest RM, Kampani AV, Scholler N, O’Briant KC, Anderson GL, Cramer DW, Berg CD, McIntosh MW, Hartge P, Drescher CW (2011) Potential role of HE4 in multimodal screening for epithelial ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(21):1630–1634

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Karlsen MA, Sandhu N, Høgdall C, Christensen IJ, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA, Pedersen AT, Hartwell D, Lydolph M, Laursen IA, Høgdall EV (2012) Evaluation of HE4, CA125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) as diagnostic tools of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 127(2):379–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jacob F, Meier M, Caduff R, Goldstein D, Pochechueva T, Hacker N, Fink D, Heinzelmann-Schwarz V (2011) No benefit from combining HE4 and CA125 as ovarian tumor markers in a clinical setting. Gynecol Oncol 121(3):487–491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Campbell S (2012) Ovarian cancer: role of ultrasound in preoperative diagnosis and population screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40(3):245–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Reade CJ, Riva JJ, Busse JW, Goldsmith CH, Elit L (2013) Risks and benefits of screening asymptomatic women for ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 130(3):674–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Long KC, Kauff ND (2013) Screening for familial ovarian cancer: a ray of hope and a light to steer by. J Clin Oncol 31(1):8–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mohaghegh P, Rockall AG (2012) Imaging strategy for early ovarian cancer: characterization of adnexal masses with conventional and advanced imaging techniques. Radiographics 32(6):1751–1773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Timmerman D, Schwärzler P, Collins WP, Claerhout F, Coenen M, Amant F, Vergote I, Bourne TH (1999) Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 13:11–16

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dodge JE, Covens AL, Lacchetti C, Elit LM, Le T, Devries-Abound M, Fung-Kee-Fung M, Gynecology Cancer Disease Site Group (2012) Management of a suspicious adnexal mass: a clinical practice guideline. Curr Oncol 19(4):244–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kinkel K, Lu Y, Mehdizade A, Pelte MF, Hricak H (2005) Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization–meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology 236(1):85–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bharwani N, Reznek RH, Rockall AG (2011) Ovarian cancer management: the role of imaging and diagnostic challenges. Eur J Radiol 78(1):41–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Alt CD, Brockner KA, Eichbaum M, Sohn C, Arnegger FU, Kauczor HU, Hallscheidt P (2011) Imaging of female pelvic malignancies regarding MRI, CT, and PET/CT: part 2. Strahlenther Onkol 187(11):705–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Basu S, Kwee TC, Surti S, Akin EA, Yoo D, Alavi A (2011) Fundamentals of PET and PET/CT imaging. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1228:1–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nishizawa S, Inubushi M, Ozawa F, Kido A, Okada H (2007) Physiological FDG uptake in the ovaries after hysterectomy. Ann Nucl Med 21(6):345–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhu ZH, Cheng WY, Cheng X, Dang YH (2007) Characteristics of physiological uptake of uterus and ovaries on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 29(1):124–129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Iyer RB, Balachandran A, Devine CE (2007) PET/CT and cross sectional imaging of gynecologic malignancy. Cancer Imaging 7 (Spec No A):S130–S138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Castellucci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M, Ghi T, Farsad M, Nanni C, Messa C, Meriggiola MC, Pelusi G, Al-Nahhas A, Rubello D, Fazio F, Fanti S (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nucl Med Commun 28(8):589–595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Risum S, Høgdall C, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Høgdall E, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA (2007) The diagnostic value of PET/CT for primary ovarian cancer––a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 105(1):145–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yamamoto Y, Oguri H, Yamada R, Maeda N, Kohsaki S, Fukaya T (2008) Preoperative evaluation of pelvic masses with combined 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 102(2):124–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nam EJ, Yun MJ, Oh YT, Kim JW, Kim JH, Kim S, Jung YW, Kim SW, Kim YT (2010) Diagnosis and staging of primary ovarian cancer: correlation between PET/CT, Doppler US, and CT or MRI. Gynecol Oncol 116(3):389–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, Verheijen RH, van der Burg ME, Lacave AJ, Panici PB, Kenter GG, Casado A, Mendiola C, Coens C, Verleye L, Stuart GC, Pecorelli S, Reed NS, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Gynaecological Cancer Group; NCIC Clinical Trials Group (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 363(10):943–953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Forstner R (2007) Radiological staging of ovarian cancer: imaging findings and contribution of CT and MRI. Eur Radiol 17(12):3223–3235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fischerova D (2011) Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecological tumors: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38(3):246–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Testa AC, Bourne TH (2009) Characterising pelvic masses using ultrasound. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 23(5):725–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fischerova D, Cibula D, Dundr P, Zikan M, Freitag P, Slama J, Calda P (2008) The role of ultrasound in prediction of optimal versus suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancers OC 132: 18th World congress on ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32:243–307

    Google Scholar 

  43. Uzan C, Kane A, Rey A, Gouy S, Pautier P, Lhomme C, Duvillard P, Morice P (2011) How to follow up advanced-stage borderline tumours? Mode of diagnosis of recurrence in a large series stage II–III serious borderline tumours of the ovary. Ann Oncol 22(3):631–635

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zanetta G, Rota S, Lissoni A, Meni A, Brancatelli G, Buda A (2001) Ultrasound, physical examination, and CA 125 measurement for the detection of recurrence after conservative surgery for early borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 81(1):63–66

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mitchell D, Javitt M, Glanc P, Bennett G, Brown D, Dubinsky T, Harisinghani M, Harris R, Horowitz N, Pandharipande P, Pannu H, Podrasky A, Royal H, Shipp T, Siegel C, Simpson L, Wong-You-Cheong J, Zelop C (2012) Staging and follow-up of ovarian cancer ACR appropriateness criteria®

  46. Woodward PJ, Hosseinzadeh K, Saenger JS (2004) From the archives of the AFIP: radiologic staging of ovarian carcinoma with pathologic correlation. Radiographics 24(1):225–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Forstner R, Hricak H, Occhipinti KA, Powell CB, Frankel SD, Stern JL (1995) Ovarian cancer: staging with CT and MR imaging. Radiology 197(3):619–626

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG, Brown DL, Kurtz AB, McNeil BJ (2000) Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities––report from the radiological diagnostic oncology group. Radiology 215(3):761–767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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(2):495–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sebastian S, Lee SI, Horowitz NS, Scott JA, Fischman AJ, Simeone JF, Fulle AF, Hahn PF (2008) PET-CT versus CT alone in ovarian cancer recurrence. Source Abdomen Imaging 33(1):112–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Markman M (2009) Optimal management of recurrent ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 19(Suppl 2):S40–S43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Murakami M, Miyamoto T, Iida T, Tsukada H, Watanabe M, Shida M, Maeda H, Nasu S, Yasuda S, Yasuda M, Ide M (2006) Whole-body positron emission tomography and tumor marker CA125 for detection of recurrence in epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16(1):99–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Thrall MM, DeLoia JA, Gallion H, Avril N (2007) Clinical use of combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 105(1):17–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Dorothy Huang, Dr. André Fedier and Dr. Hans Ulrich Brauer for their critical review in the preparation of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they had no financial support and that there is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ultrasound Unit, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Gwendolin Manegold-Brauer, Olav Lapaire & Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz

  2. Practice for Prenatal Diagnostics and Gynecologic Ultrasound, Basel, Switzerland

    Anjeung Kang Bellin & Sevgi Tercanli

Authors
  1. Gwendolin Manegold-Brauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anjeung Kang Bellin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sevgi Tercanli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olav Lapaire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwendolin Manegold-Brauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manegold-Brauer, G., Bellin, A.K., Tercanli, S. et al. The special role of ultrasound for screening, staging and surveillance of malignant ovarian tumors: distinction from other methods of diagnostic imaging. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289, 491–498 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3081-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3081-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation