Tumor Biology

, Volume 37, Issue 9, pp 12619–12626 | Cite as

A novel index for preoperative, non-invasive prediction of macro-radical primary surgery in patients with stage IIIC–IV ovarian cancer—a part of the Danish prospective pelvic mass study

  • Mona Aarenstrup Karlsen
  • Carsten Fagö-Olsen
  • Estrid Høgdall
  • Tine Henrichsen Schnack
  • Ib Jarle Christensen
  • Lotte Nedergaard
  • Lene Lundvall
  • Magnus Christian Lydolph
  • Svend Aage Engelholm
  • Claus Høgdall
Original Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a novel index for preoperative, non-invasive prediction of complete primary cytoreduction in patients with FIGO stage IIIC–IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Prospectively collected clinical data was registered in the Danish Gynecologic Cancer Database. Blood samples were collected within 14 days of surgery and stored by the Danish CancerBiobank. Serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125), age, performance status, and presence/absence of ascites at ultrasonography were evaluated individually and combined to predict complete tumor removal. One hundred fifty patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer were treated with primary debulking surgery (PDS). Complete PDS was achieved in 41 cases (27 %). The receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.785 for HE4, 0.678 for CA125, and 0.688 for age. The multivariate model (Cancer Ovarii Non-invasive Assessment of Treatment Strategy (CONATS) index), consisting of HE4, age, and performance status, demonstrated an AUC of 0.853. According to the Danish indicator level, macro-radical PDS should be achieved in 60 % of patients admitted to primary surgery (positive predictive value of 60 %), resulting in a negative predictive value of 87.5 %, sensitivity of 68.3 %, specificity of 83.5 %, and cutoff of 0.63 for the CONATS index. Non-invasive prediction of complete PDS is possible with the CONATS index. The CONATS index is meant as a supplement to the standard preoperative evaluation of each patient. Evaluation of the CONATS index combined with radiological and/or laparoscopic findings may improve the assessment of the optimal treatment strategy in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

Keywords

Ovarian cancer HE4 Primary debulking surgery Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Multidisciplinary team meetings Non-invasive prediction model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Danish CancerBiobank (DCB) for providing blood samples collected, handled, and stored according to strict biobank guidelines.

We furthermore thank the Danish Gynecologic Cancer Database (DGCD) for providing clinical data for the article.

Finally, we thank Abbott Diagnostics for providing kits for serum HE4 analyses.

Compliance with ethical standards

Oral and written consent was given by each patient before enrollment. The Danish Ethical Committee has approved the study protocol (KF01-227/03 and KF01-143/04, H-3-2010-022).

Sources of support

This study was supported by the Arvid Nilsson Foundation, the Research Council at Herlev University Hospital, the Gangsted foundation, Merchant Kristian Kjær and wife Margrethe Kjær Foundation, and Director Jacob Madsen and wife Olga Madsen Foundation.

Furthermore, Abbott Diagnostics provided the HE4 kits for serum analyses.

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Friedman RL, Lin WC, Pisani AL, Perticucci S. Relative influences of tumor volume before surgery and the cytoreductive outcome on survival for patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90(2):390–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, Harter P, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des cancers de l'Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer. 2009;115(6):1234–44. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24149. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vergote I, Trope CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943–53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fago-Olsen CL, Ottesen B, Kehlet H, Antonsen SL, Christensen IJ, Markauskas A, et al. Does neoadjuvant chemotherapy impair long-term survival for ovarian cancer patients? A nationwide Danish study. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(2):292–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.11.035. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fanfani F, Ferrandina G, Corrado G, Fagotti A, Zakut HV, Mancuso S, et al. Impact of interval debulking surgery on clinical outcome in primary unresectable FIGO stage IIIc ovarian cancer patients. Oncology. 2003;65(4):316–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sandhu N, Karlsen MA, Hogdall C, Laursen IA, Christensen IJ, Hogdall EV. Stability of HE4 and CA125 in blood samples from patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2014;74(6):477–84. doi: 10.3109/00365513.2014.903430. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saygili U, Guclu S, Uslu T, Erten O, Demir N, Onvural A. Can serum CA-125 levels predict the optimal primary cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma? Gynecol Oncol. 2002;86(1):57–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arits AH, Stoot JE, Botterweck AA, Roumen FJ, Voogd AC. Preoperative serum CA125 levels do not predict suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(4):621–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01064.x. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barlow TS, Przybylski M, Schilder JM, Moore DH, Look KY. The utility of presurgical CA125 to predict optimal tumor cytoreduction of epithelial ovarian cancer. International journal of gynecological cancer: official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society. 2006;16(2):496–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00573.x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brockbank EC, Ind TE, Barton DP, Shepherd JH, Gore ME, A'Hern R, et al. Preoperative predictors of suboptimal primary surgical cytoreduction in women with clinical evidence of advanced primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004;14(1):42–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cooper BC, Sood AK, Davis CS, Ritchie JM, Sorosky JI, Anderson B, et al. Preoperative CA 125 levels: an independent prognostic factor for epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(1):59–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eltabbakh GH, Mount SL, Beatty B, Simmons-Arnold L, Cooper K, Morgan A. Factors associated with cytoreducibility among women with ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95(2):377–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.07.045. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gemer O, Lurian M, Gdalevich M, Kapustian V, Piura E, Schneider D, et al. A multicenter study of CA 125 level as a predictor of non-optimal primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005;31(9):1006–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2005.05.009. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Memarzadeh S, Lee SB, Berek JS, Farias-Eisner R. CA125 levels are a weak predictor of optimal cytoreductive surgery in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13(2):120–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Obeidat B, Latimer J, Crawford R. Can optimal primary cytoreduction be predicted in advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer? Role of preoperative serum CA-125 level. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2004;57(3):153–6. doi: 10.1159/000076236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Angioli R, Plotti F, Capriglione S, Aloisi A, Montera R, Luvero D, et al. Can the preoperative HE4 level predict optimal cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma? Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(3):579–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.040. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Braicu EI, Fotopoulou C, Van Gorp T, Richter R, Chekerov R, Hall C, et al. Preoperative HE4 expression in plasma predicts surgical outcome in primary ovarian cancer patients: results from the OVCAD study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(2):245–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.023. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Risum S, Hogdall C, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Hogdall E, Nedergaard L, et al. Prediction of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in primary ovarian cancer with combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography—a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108(2):265–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.11.002. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bristow RE, Duska LR, Lambrou NC, Fishman EK, O'Neill MJ, Trimble EL, et al. A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Cancer. 2000;89(7):1532–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferrandina G, Sallustio G, Fagotti A, Vizzielli G, Paglia A, Cucci E, et al. Role of CT scan-based and clinical evaluation in the preoperative prediction of optimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective trial. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(7):1066–73. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605292. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim HJ, Choi CH, Lee YY, Kim TJ, Lee JW, Bae DS, et al. Surgical outcome prediction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer using computed tomography scans and intraoperative findings. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53(3):343–7. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2013.10.041. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacKintosh ML, Rahim R, Rajashanker B, Swindell R, Kirmani BH, Hunt J, et al. CT scan does not predict optimal debulking in stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer: a multicentre validation study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;34(5):424–8. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2014.899330. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salani R, Axtell A, Gerardi M, Holschneider C, Bristow RE. Limited utility of conventional criteria for predicting unresectable disease in patients with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108(2):271–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.11.004. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Angioli R, Palaia I, Zullo MA, Muzii L, Manci N, Calcagno M, et al. Diagnostic open laparoscopy in the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100(3):455–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.09.060. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Danish Cancer Biobank [database on the Internet]. 2012. www.cancerbiobank.dk. Accessed 22 Apr 2016.
  26. 26.
    Rutten MJ, van de Vrie R, Bruining A, Spijkerboer AM, Mol BW, Kenter GG, et al. Predicting surgical outcome in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV ovarian cancer using computed tomography: a systematic review of prediction models. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(3):407–15. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000368. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karlsen NS, Karlsen MA, Hogdall CK, Hogdall E. HE4 tissue expression and serum HE4 levels in healthy individuals and patients with benign or malignant tumours—a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2014. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0447. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rutten MJ, Leeflang MM, Kenter GG, Mol BW, Buist M. Laparoscopy for diagnosing resectability of disease in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2:CD009786. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009786.pub2. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mona Aarenstrup Karlsen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carsten Fagö-Olsen
    • 1
  • Estrid Høgdall
    • 2
  • Tine Henrichsen Schnack
    • 1
  • Ib Jarle Christensen
    • 2
  • Lotte Nedergaard
    • 3
  • Lene Lundvall
    • 1
  • Magnus Christian Lydolph
    • 4
  • Svend Aage Engelholm
    • 5
  • Claus Høgdall
    • 1
  1. 1.Gynecologic ClinicUniversity Hospital of Copenhagen, RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Molecular Unit, Department of PathologyHerlev University HospitalHerlevDenmark
  3. 3.Department of PathologyUniversity Hospital of Copenhagen, RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Autoimmunology and BiomarkersStatens Serum InstituteCopenhagenDenmark
  5. 5.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity Hospital of Copenhagen, RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations