MALIGNANT OVARIAN TUMORS DIAGNOSTICS DIFFICULTIES
https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2018-14-2-82-89
Abstract
Despite the undeniable successes of modern medicine, the problems of oncology and, in particular, oncogynecology are still unresolved. Thus, a 5-year overall survival rate for stage I ovarian cancer is 89 %, for stage IV – 17 %. Given that complaints in patients with ovarian cancer appear only after the tumor has passed beyond the organ, the most important and key factor in successful treatment is the correct diagnosis of ovarian neoplasm. Observance of the correct algorithm and correct surgery can significantly improve the results of treatment. The article will discuss the difficulties of diagnosing ovarian cancer.
About the Authors
S. O. Nikoghosyan
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gynecological department
23 Kashirskoe Shosse, Moscow 115478
A. Z. Zagashtokov
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gynecological department
23 Kashirskoe Shosse, Moscow 115478
N. E. Levchenko
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gynecological department
23 Kashirskoe Shosse, Moscow 115478
M. M. Thakokhov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Department of Oncology and Radiation Therapy of the Faculty of Medicine
16 Moskvorechye St., 115409 Moscow
References
1. De Angelis R., Sant M., Coleman M.P. et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999– 2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2014;15(1):23–34. PMID: 24314615. DOI: 10.1016/S1470- 2045(13)70546-1.
2. Baldwin L.A., Huang B., Miller R.W. et al. Ten-year relative survival for epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120(3):612–8. PMID: 22914471. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318264f794.
3. Flam F., Einhorn N., Sjovall K. Symptomatology of ovarian cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1988;27(1):53–7. PMID: 3338609.
4. ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice. The role of the generalist obstetriciangynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2002;87(3):237–9. PMID: 12492084.
5. Walker J.L., Powell C.B., Chen L.M. et al. Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for the prevention of ovarian cancer. Cancer 2015;121(13):2108–20. PMID: 25820366. DOI: 10.1002/ cncr.29321.
6. Abduljabbar H.S., Bukhari Y.A., Al Hachim E.G. et al. Review of 244 cases of ovarian cysts. Saudi Med J 2015;36(7):834–8. PMID: 26108588. DOI: 10.15537/smj.2015.7.11690.
7. Mubarak F., Alam M.S., Akhtar W. et al. Role of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients with ovarian masses. Int J Womens Health 2011;(3):123–6. PMID: 21573148. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S15501.
8. Iyer V.R., Lee S.I. MRI, CT and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(2):311–21. PMID: 20093590. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3522.
9. Prakash P., Cronin C.G., Blake M.A. Role of PET/CT in ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(6):W464–70. PMID: 20489063. DOI: 10.2214/ AJR.09.3843.
10. Timmerman D., Testa A.C., Bourne T. et al. 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 2005;23(34):8794–801. PMID: 16314639. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.7632.
11. Timmerman D., Valentin L., Bourne T.H. et al. 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 2000;16(5):500–5. PMID: 11169340. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x.
12. Moss E.L., Hollingworth J., Reynolds T.M. The role of CA-125 in clinical practice. J Clin Pathol 2005;58(3):308–12. PMID: 15735166. DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2004.018077.
13. Никогосян С.О., Кузнецов В.В. Современная диагностика рака яичников. Российский онкологический журнал 2013;(5):52–6. [Nikogosyan S.O., Kuznetsov V.V. Current diagnostics of ovarian cancer. Rossiyskiy onkologicheskiy zhurnal = Russian Journal of Oncology 2013;(5):52–6. (In Russ.)].
14. Новикова Е.Г., Сухина Н.Г., Иванов В.П. Ошибки в диагностике и лечении редких форм злокачественных опухолей яичников, выявленных при лапароскопии. Доступно по: https://rosoncoweb. ru/library/congress/ru/06/56.php. [Novikova E.G., Sukhina N.G., Ivanov V.P. Errors in the diagnosis and management of rare ovarian cancers detected by laparoscopy. Available at: https://rosoncoweb. ru/library/congress/ru/06/56.php. (In Russ.)].
15. Dodge J.E., Covens A.L., Lacchetti C. et al. Management of a suspicious adnexal mass: a clinical practice guideline. Curr Oncol 2012;19(4):e244–57. PMID: 22876153. DOI: 10.3747/co.19.980.
16. Jacobs I., Oram D., Fairbanks J. et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97(10):922–9. PMID: 2223684.
17. Timmerman D., Ameye L., Fischerova D. et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010;341:c6839. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c6839.
18. Hellstrom I., Raycraft J., Hayden-Ledbetter M. et al. The HE4 (WFDC2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 2003;63(13):3695–700. PMID: 12839961.
19. Drapkin R., von Horsten H.H., Lin Y. et al. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a secreted glycoprotein that is overexpressed by serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Res 2005;65(6):2162–9. PMID: 15781627. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-3924.
20. Montagnana M., Lippi G., Ruzzenente O. et al. The utility of serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in patients with a pelvic mass. J Clin Lab Anal 2009;23(5): 331–5. PMID: 19774626. DOI: 10.1002/ jcla.20340.
21. Moore R.G., Jabre-Raughley M., Brown A.K. et al. Comparison of a novel multiple marker assay versus the Risk of Malignancy Index for the prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203(3):228. e1–6. PMID: 20471625. DOI: 10.1016/j. ajog.2010.03.043.
22. Moore R.G., Brown A.K., Miller M.C. et al. Utility of a novel serum tumor biomarker HE4 in patients with endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus. Gynecol Oncol 2008;110(2):196–201. PMID: 18495222. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.04.002.
23. Montagnana M., Danese E., Ruzzenente O. et al. The ROMA (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm) for estimating the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in women presenting with pelvic mass: is it really useful? Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49(3):521–5. PMID: 21288178. DOI: 10.1515/ CCLM.2011.075.
24. Dayyani F., Uhlig S., Colson B. et al. Diagnostic performance of risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm against CA-125 and HE4 in connection with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016;26(9):1586–93. PMID: 27540691. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000804.
25. Meys E.M., Kaijser J., Kruitwagen R.F. et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2016;(58):17–29. PMID: 26922169. OI: 10.1016/j. ejca.2016.01.007.
26. Fortner R.T., Damms-Machado A., Kaaks R. Systematic review: tumor-associated antigen autoantibodies and ovarian cancer early detection. Gynecol Oncol 2017;147(2):465–80. PMID: 28800944. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.07.138.
27. Buys S.S., Partridge E., Black A. et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2011;305(22):2295–303. PMID: 21642681. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.766.
28. Jacobs I., Menon U. Can ovarian cancer screening save lives? The question remains unanswered. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118(6):1209–11. PMID: 22105248. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823b49b3.
29. Kobayashi H., Yamada Y., Sado T. et al. A randomized study of screening for ovarian cancer: a multicenter study in Japan. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008;18(3):414–20. PMID: 17645503. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01035.x.
30. Skates S.J., Xu F.J., Yu Y.H. et al. Toward an optimal algorithm for ovarian cancer screening with longitudinal tumor markers. Cancer 1995;76(10 Suppl):2004–10. PMID: 8634992.
31. Thornton J.G., Bewley S. Ovarian cancer screening: UKCTOCS trial. Lancet 2016;387(10038):2601–2. DOI: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(16)30846-7.
32. Lu K.H., Skates S., Hernandez M.A. et al. A 2-stage ovarian cancer screening strategy using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) identifies early stage incident cancers and demonstrates high positive predictive value. Cancer 2013;119(19):3454–61. PMID: 23983047. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28183.
33. Menon U., Gentry-Maharaj A., Hallett R. et al. Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol 2009;10(4):327–40. PMID: 19282241. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70026-9.
Review
For citations:
Nikoghosyan S.O., Zagashtokov A.Z., Levchenko N.E., Thakokhov M.M. MALIGNANT OVARIAN TUMORS DIAGNOSTICS DIFFICULTIES. Tumors of female reproductive system. 2018;14(2):82-89. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2018-14-2-82-89
Views:
1179
Email this article 