J Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Sep;29(5):e65. English.
Published online Apr 23, 2018.
Copyright © 2018. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology
Original Article

A triage strategy in advanced ovarian cancer management based on multiple predictive models for R0 resection: a prospective cohort study

Zheng Feng,1,2,* Hao Wen,1,2,* Zhaoxia Jiang,2,3 Shuai Liu,2,4,5,6 Xingzhu Ju,1,2 Xiaojun Chen,1,2 Lingfang Xia,1,2 Junyan Xu,2,4,5,6 Rui Bi,2,7 and Xiaohua Wu1,2
    • 1Department of Gynecological Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
    • 2Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
    • 3Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
    • 4Department of Nuclear Medicine, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
    • 5Center for Biomedical Imaging, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
    • 6Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Molecular Imaging Probes, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
    • 7Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Received March 01, 2018; Revised April 06, 2018; Accepted April 07, 2018.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective

To present the surgical outcomes of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) since the implementation of a personalized approach and to validate multiple predictive models for R0 resection.

Methods

Personalized strategies included: 1) Non-invasive model: preoperative clinico-radiological assessment according to Suidan criteria with a predictive score for all individuals. Patients with a score 0–2 were recommended for primary debulking surgery (PDS, group A), or otherwise were counseled on the choices of PDS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC, group B) or staging laparoscopy (S-LPS). 2) Minimally invasive model: S-LPS with a predictive index value (PIV) according to Fagotti. Individuals with a PIV <8 underwent PDS (group C) or otherwise received NAC (group D). Intraoperative assessment (with Eisenkop, peritoneal cancer index [PCI], and Aletti scores) and surgical results were prospectively collected.

Results

Between September 2015 and August 2017, 161 pathologically confirmed epithelial ovarian cancer patients were included. A total of 52 (32.3%) patients had a predictive score of 0–2, and 109 (67.7%) patients had a score ≥3. Among these individuals, 41 (25.5%) patients received S-LPS. Finally, 110 (68.3%) patients underwent PDS (A+C), and 51 (31.7%) patients received NAC (B+D). The R0 resection rates in PDS and NAC patients were 56.4% and 60.8%, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of Suidan criteria was 0.548 for group (A+C). The AUC of Fagotti score was 0.702 for group C. The AUC of Eisenkop, PCI, and Aletti scores were 0.808, 0.797, and 0.524, respectively.

Conclusion

The Suidan criteria were not effective in these AEOC patients. S-LPS was helpful in decision-making for PDS and should be endorsed in the future.

Keywords
Predictive Model; Scoring Method; Surgical Outcomes; Perioperative Complications; R0 Resection; No Residual Disease

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian cancer (OC) is one of the most common and lethal diseases among females worldwide. Approximately two-thirds of all patients are of advanced stage at diagnosis, with widespread intraabdominal disease [1, 2]. The standard treatment for OC includes staging/debulking surgery and individual platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy.

Several studies have reported that residual disease after primary debulking surgery (PDS) could independently influence patient survival. Individuals in the complete cytoreduction (no residual disease) group achieved the best prognosis among advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) patients [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Currently, the primary goal of PDS has been changed to R0 resection.

However, not all patients could afford extensive surgical procedures to achieve complete cytoreduction. Two randomized trials (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] 55971 and CHemotherapy OR Upfront Surgery [CHORUS]) have shown non-inferior prognosis with lower postoperative adverse events in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) groups compared with PDS groups of AEOC patients [9, 10, 11]. Although the NAC group had higher R0 resection rates compared with those of the PDS group, the complete cytoreduction rates in both groups are lower compared with other studies [8, 12]. Patients debulked to no gross RD in the PDS group had the best prognosis in both studies [9, 11]. Thus, NAC has been proposed as an alternative in AEOC patients with low performance status, underlying morbidity, older age or disseminated unresectable disease. Additionally, clear selection criteria for different approaches are urgently required for the personalized management of AEOC patients.

To more precisely quantify the intraabdominal extent of OC, multiple predictive models and ranking systems have been proposed [13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. For non-invasive methods, Suidan et al. [17] proposed a model with high predictive ability (area under the curve [AUC]=0.72), containing 3 preoperative clinical and 8 radiological criteria, for complete cytoreduction. However, the external validation has not been confirmed. Minimal invasive approaches, such as laparoscopy, are recommended according to the guidelines. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that applying suitable predictive models can better classify patients into different treatment approaches with elevated radical surgery rate and acceptable morbidity.

In September 2015, the specialized OC unit at our institution implemented a personalized surgical approach for the treatment of all suspected AEOC. The aim of the present study was to present surgical outcomes for AEOC since implementation of a personalized approach and to validate the performance of multiple predictive models for R0 resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Data collection

This study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Committee at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC, approval number: 050432-4-1212B). All individual participants consented to the use of their medical records for research purposes. The clinical data were prospectively collected from patients referred to FUSCC for suspicious AEOC. All patients included in this group did not receive any disease treatment prior to referral. The histological diagnoses were based on World Health Organization criteria, and patients with other malignancies according to pathological reports were excluded. Between September 1, 2015 and August 31, 2017, a prospective cohort containing 161 patients with pathologically confirmed epithelial ovarian cancer was included in the analysis. The data included the demographics, preoperative labs and radiological findings, preoperative medical evaluation, intraoperative findings, and surgical outcomes and complications for the patient.

2. Predictive models and strategies

A summary of the present strategy for patients with suspicious AEOC is shown in Fig. 1. We have validated 2 predictive models.

Fig. 1
Flow diagram for primary treatment of AEOC by specialized ovarian cancer unit at FUSCC (2015.9–2017.8). Group A: PDS; Group B: NAC+IDS; Group C: LP+PDS; Group D: LP+NAC+IDS.

AEOC, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer; FUSCC, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center; IDS, interval debulking surgery; LP, laparoscopy; NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; PCI, peritoneal cancer index; PDS, primary debulking surgery; PIV, predictive index value.

1) Non-invasive model

All patients had computed tomography scans within 2 weeks before treatment. Two experienced gynecological radiologists had preoperative radiological assessment according to the Suidan criteria for R0 resection with a predictive score for all individuals (Supplementary Table 1) [17]. Patients with a score 0–2 were recommended for PDS (group A), while the other individuals with a score ≥3 were counseled on the choices of PDS (group A), NAC (group B), or an optional staging laparoscopy (S-LPS).

2) Minimally invasive model

S-LPS with a predictive index value (PIV) according to Fagotti (Supplementary Table 2) [15]. PIV was evaluated by 2 experienced gynecological oncologists. Individuals with a PIV <8 underwent PDS (group C), or otherwise received NAC (group D).

3. Intra- and postoperative findings

Intraoperative assessments of tumor burden (with Eisenkop [14] and Peritoneal cancer index [PCI] score [16]) were recorded by 2 experienced gynecological oncologists (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4). The Aletti score was used for ranking surgical complexity (Supplementary Table 5) [13]. Residual disease after surgery was reported as R0, R1, and R2. R0 was defined as no macroscopic residual disease. R1 and R2 were defined as macroscopic residual disease with a maximal diameter of <1 cm and >1 cm, respectively. The optimal resection was defined as the combination of R0 and R1. Surgical morbidity was determined according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification [18]. Complications > grade 2 requiring clinical intervention were reported.

4. Statistical analyses

SPSS statistical software (version 21.0; IBM Inc., New York, USA) was used for the statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were used for the demographic data and summarized as medians with ranges or frequencies with percentages. The categorical data were compared with χ2 or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate. Continuous outcomes were compared by using Student's t-test. ROC curve analysis was used to assess the ability of the pre- and intra-operative ranking systems to identify patients who were most likely to have complete surgical resection. The AUC was used as an indicator for predictive accuracy. The p<0.05 was considered statistically significant, and all reported p-values were 2-sided.

RESULTS

1. Patient characteristics

The patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. A total of 161 OC patients were included in the analysis. The median (range) age was 57 (27–77) years old. The median cancer antigen 125 was 1,062 IU/mL. The majority (158/161, 98.1%) of patients were of advanced International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, including 128 patients with stage III and 30 patients with stage IV diseases, and 81.4% of patients were high-grade serous OC.

2. Personalized surgical triage

All patients referred to the institution with a suspicious AEOC were initially evaluated by the multidisciplinary unit. For radiological assessment, 52 (32.3%) patients had a predictive score of 0–2, almost all (50/52, 96.2%) received PDS, except that 2 patients had subsequent S-LPS. One hundred nine (67.7%) patients had a score ≥3. Among them, 27 patients (24.8%) insisted on PDS, 43 (39.4%) patients received NAC, and the rest 39 (35.8%) had S-LPS. In total, 41 of 161 (25.5%) patients received S-LPS, and 33 out of 41 (80.5%) were then submitted to PDS. Finally, 110 (68.3%) patients underwent PDS (A+C), and 51 (31.7%) patients received NAC (B+D) (Fig. 1). For NAC patients, scores at interval surgery (Eisenkop, PCI, and Aletti scores) were also collected. Detailed surgical variables according to the stratification groups are shown in Table 2.

Table 2
Patient characteristics and surgical variables according to the stratification groups

3. Performance of the predictive models for R0 resection

Complete resection (R0) was achieved in 56.4% of the PDS cases (54.5% in group A and 60.6% in group C, respectively). The AUC of the clinico-radiological predictive score was 0.548 in the PDS group (A+C). The values for the AUC of the Eisenkop, PCI, and Aletti scores were 0.808, 0.797, and 0.524, respectively (Fig. 2). The AUC of the Fagotti score was 0.702 in group C (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2
Discriminatory power of radiological and intraoperative scores for complete resection.

AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; PCI, peritoneal cancer index; ROC, receiver operating characteristics.

Fig. 3
ROC curve analysis for S-LPS score.

AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; ROC, receiver operating characteristics; S-LPS, staging laparoscopy.

4. Surgical outcomes between PDS and NAC groups

Compared with PDS, interval-debulking surgery required a significantly shorter operation time (202 [83–454] vs. 166 [72–316] minutes, p=0.019). The optimal resection rates in PDS and NAC patients were 84.5% (56.4% R0 and 28.2% <1 cm) and 90.2% (60.8% R0 and 29.4% <1 cm), respectively. More patients in the PDS group received more extensive surgery and had high complexity surgery scores compared with those in the NAC group (p=0.001). The intraoperative complication rates were low in both groups, without significant difference (p=0.506). PDS patients experienced more postoperative complications compared with NAC patients (32.7% vs. 13.7%, p=0.013), and longer median (range) hospital stay (12 [6–61] vs. 8 [624] days, p<0.001) (Table 3). In the PDS group, postoperative complication rates were correlated with surgical complexity (low vs. intermediate vs. high, 5.6% vs. 29.1% vs. 51.4%, p=0.001). The complication rates also increased with increasing surgical complexity, but remained below 30% in all groups (low vs. intermediate vs. high, 4.8% vs. 17.4% vs. 28.6%, p=0.224). Details of perioperative complications are shown in Supplementary Table 6.

Table 3
Surgical results stratified by PDS and NAC groups

DISCUSSION

The present study validated multiple predictive models for R0 resection in a large prospective patient cohort treated by a specialized surgical team. The Suidan criteria were not effective for the present AEOC patients. S-LPS was helpful for PDS decision-making with a high AUC. Patients in the PDS group had similar R0 rate compared with those in the NAC group. Applying suitable predictive models can better triage patients into different treatment approaches with elevated radical surgery rates and acceptable morbidity.

The volume of residual disease is inversely correlated with the prognosis of the AEOC patient, and the definition of optimal debulking has changed over the years [3, 4, 5]. Since complete cytoreduction achieved the best prognosis among AEOC patients, the primary goal of PDS has been changed to R0 resection [6, 7, 8]. In a previous study, we showed a complete resection rate of 31% OC patients at our institution between 2005 and 2013 [19]. Since the implementation of a personalized surgical approach, the R0 rate improved to 56.4% in the PDS group. These results are comparable to those in other studies, reporting R0 rates ranging from 41% to 67.8% [20, 21, 22].

NAC could also improve the R0 rate of AEOC patients compared with PDS according to 2 randomized trials (EORTC 55971 and CHORUS) [9, 11]. However, the R0 rates in the PDS group were below 20%, much lower compared with those in other studies [8, 12], and it is not clear whether maximal efforts were made during PDS. Although patients in the NAC group showed non-inferior prognosis compared with those in the PDS groups, the patients in the PDS group with no residual disease subgroup had the best prognosis. Thus, NAC has been proposed as an alternative treatment strategy for advanced AEOC patients with low performance status, underlying morbidity, older age or disseminated unresectable disease. Additionally, clear selection criteria to triage surgical candidates are urgently required for the personalized management of AEOC patients.

As the extent of the disease determines the ability to perform complete cytoreduction, several predictive models have been proposed [12, 15, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26]. Clinico-radiological assessment is non-invasive, convenient and cost-effective. Mono-institution studies have reported the high predictive accuracies of radiological models. However, these findings could not be confirmed in cross-validation studies, and these studies did not aim at R0 resection prediction [23, 24, 27]. Suidan et al. [17] first proposed a predictive model for complete cytoreduction composed of 3 preoperative clinical and 8 radiological criteria with high predictive ability (AUC=0.72) based on post hoc analysis of a prospective non-randomized multicenter trial. However, the AUC of the Suidan criteria was only 0.548 in the present cohort, which is not as effective as that in the training cohort. This result indicated that in contemporary situations, preoperative radiological predictors should be used with caution, and there are still no universal applicable criteria.

Minimal invasive approaches, such as laparoscopy, are recommended according to international guidelines. The laparoscopic predictive score, the Fagotti score, has been well recognized, with an negative predictive value of 100% [15, 28]. In the S-LPS group, we reported an AUC of 0.713, compared with 0.66 in Fagotti et al.'s study [12]. Thus, S-LPS could be used for decision-making in PDS. However, some patients did not receive S-LPS for economic or invasive reasons, while almost all patients underwent preoperative radiological scans. Thus, it is valuable to develop a strategy for incorporating minimally invasive laparoscopic assessment into routine mandatory non-invasive radiological assessment, which is more convenient and cost-effective in daily practice. Multi-center co-operation is required to establish the general criteria for disease evaluation, and each institution could validate their own cutoffs based on their respective clinical practices.

According to the present selective algorithm, the patients were triaged into PDS or NAC group. Consistent with previous studies, the present study has also found the benefit of NAC and interval debulking surgery (IDS) compared with PDS, such as shorter operative time, shorter hospital stays, and lower postoperative complication rates. Notably, half of the patients in the PDS group with high surgical complexity suffered postoperative complications, and in the NAC group, the patients with surgical complexity had acceptable complication rates under 30%. Different from previous studies, there was no difference in the R0 resection rates between PDS and NAC groups. This finding may be due to the selected approach used in the present study, and patients in the NAC group had a higher tumor burden than those in the PDS group. Moreover, the determination for residual disease after IDS was subjective because of the fibrosis and adhesion in the peritoneal cavity after NAC. Since the present personalized approach was initiated in 2015, prognosis comparison needs further follow-up.

In conclusion, we demonstrated a personalized surgical approach to AEOC based on multiple predictive models for R0 resection. This algorithm needs further modification to better define the best candidates for different treatment approaches, and multi-center cooperation is required to establish the general criteria.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary Table 1

The Suidan criteria for R0 resection [17]

Click here to view.(28K, xls)

Supplementary Table 2

Fagotti score [15]

Click here to view.(28K, xls)

Supplementary Table 3

Eisenkop score [14]

Click here to view.(31K, xls)

Supplementary Table 4

PCI [16]

Click here to view.(28K, xls)

Supplementary Table 5

Aletti score [13]

Click here to view.(29K, xls)

Supplementary Table 6

Perioperative complications among PDS and NAC groups

Click here to view.(29K, xls)

Notes

Funding:This work was financially supported through a grant from the leading project of Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (15411962000) for Xiaohua Wu.

Conflict of Interest:No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author Contributions:

  • Conceptualization: F.Z., W.H., W.X.

  • Data curation: F.Z., W.H., J.X., C.X., X.L.

  • Formal analysis: F.Z., W.H., J.Z., L.S., J.X., C.X., X.L., X.J.

  • Funding acquisition: W.X.

  • Investigation: F.Z., W.H., J.Z., L.S., X.J., B.R.

  • Methodology: F.Z., W.H., J.Z., L.S., X.J., W.X.

  • Project administration: W.X.

  • Resources: F.Z., W.H., J.X., C.X., X.L.

  • Software: F.Z., W.H., J.Z., L.S., X.J.

  • Supervision: W.X.

  • Validation: F.Z., W.H., J.X., C.X., X.L., B.R.

  • Visualization: J.X., C.X., B.R., W.X.

  • Writing - original draft: F.Z., W.H.

  • Writing - review & editing: J.Z., L.S., J.X., C.X., W.X.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank all doctors, nurses, patients, and their family members for support of the present study.

References

    1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:87–108.
    1. Berek JS, Crum C, Friedlander M. Cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012;119 Suppl 2:S118–S129.
    1. Omura G, Blessing JA, Ehrlich CE, Miller A, Yordan E, Creasman WT, et al. A randomized trial of cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin with or without cisplatin in advanced ovarian carcinoma. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer 1986;57:1725–1730.
    1. McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, Kucera PR, Partridge EE, Look KY, et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1–6.
    1. Hoskins WJ, McGuire WP, Brady MF, Homesley HD, Creasman WT, Berman M, et al. The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:974–979.
    1. Aletti GD, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Jones MB, Stanhope CR, Wilson TO, et al. Aggressive surgical effort and improved survival in advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:77–85.
    1. Chang SJ, Bristow RE, Ryu HS. Impact of complete cytoreduction leaving no gross residual disease associated with radical cytoreductive surgical procedures on survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:4059–4067.
    1. Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Lang J, Huh J, Haddad L, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. What is the optimal goal of primary cytoreductive surgery for bulky stage IIIC epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC)? Gynecol Oncol 2006;103:559–564.
    1. Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M, Jayson GC, Kitchener H, Lopes T, et al. Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2015;386:249–257.
    1. Vergote I, Amant F, Kristensen G, Ehlen T, Reed NS, Casado A. Primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 2011;47 Suppl 3:S88–S92.
    1. 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;363:943–953.
    1. Fagotti A, Vizzielli G, Fanfani F, Scambia G. Comparison of peritoneal carcinomatosis scoring methods in predicting resectability and prognosis in advanced ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:e10–e11.
    1. Aletti GD, Dowdy SC, Podratz KC, Cliby WA. Relationship among surgical complexity, short-term morbidity, and overall survival in primary surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:676.e1–676.e7.
    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;90:390–396.
    1. Fagotti A, Ferrandina G, Fanfani F, Ercoli A, Lorusso D, Rossi M, et al. A laparoscopy-based score to predict surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma: a pilot study. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:1156–1161.
    1. Sugarbaker PH, Jablonski KA. Prognostic features of 51 colorectal and 130 appendiceal cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg 1995;221:124–132.
    1. Suidan RS, Ramirez PT, Sarasohn DM, Teitcher JB, Iyer RB, Zhou Q, et al. A multicenter assessment of the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and CA-125 to predict gross residual disease at primary debulking for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2017;145:27–31.
    1. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–213.
    1. Feng Z, Wen H, Bi R, Ju X, Chen X, Yang W, et al. A clinically applicable molecular classification for high-grade serous ovarian cancer based on hormone receptor expression. Sci Rep 2016;6:25408.
    1. Rutten MJ, van Meurs HS, van de Vrie R, Gaarenstroom KN, Naaktgeboren CA, van Gorp T, et al. Laparoscopy to predict the result of primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:613–621.
    1. Aletti GD, Garbi A, Messori P, Achilarre MT, Zanagnolo V, Rizzo S, et al. Multidisciplinary approach in the management of advanced ovarian cancer patients: a personalized approach. Results from a specialized ovarian cancer unit. Gynecol Oncol 2017;144:468–473.
    1. Fagotti A, Vizzielli G, Fanfani F, Costantini B, Ferrandina G, Gallotta V, et al. Introduction of staging laparoscopy in the management of advanced epithelial ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancer: impact on prognosis in a single institution experience. Gynecol Oncol 2013;131:341–346.
    1. 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;89:1532–1540.
    1. Dowdy SC, Mullany SA, Brandt KR, Huppert BJ, Cliby WA. The utility of computed tomography scans in predicting suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2004;101:346–352.
    1. Nasser S, Lazaridis A, Evangelou M, Jones B, Nixon K, Kyrgiou M, et al. Correlation of pre-operative CT findings with surgical & histological tumor dissemination patterns at cytoreduction for primary advanced and relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer: a retrospective evaluation. Gynecol Oncol 2016;143:264–269.
    1. Suidan RS, Ramirez PT, Sarasohn DM, Teitcher JB, Mironov S, Iyer RB, et al. A multicenter prospective trial evaluating the ability of preoperative computed tomography scan and serum CA-125 to predict suboptimal cytoreduction at primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014;134:455–461.
    1. Axtell AE, Lee MH, Bristow RE, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, Raman S, et al. Multi-institutional reciprocal validation study of computed tomography predictors of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:384–389.
    1. Fagotti A, Fanfani F, Ludovisi M, Lo Voi R, Bifulco G, Testa AC, et al. Role of laparoscopy to assess the chance of optimal cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol 2005;96:729–735.

Metrics
Share
Figures

1 / 3

Tables

1 / 3

ORCID IDs
PERMALINK