BackgroundMalnutrition, weight loss, and muscle wasting (sarcopenia) are common among women with advanced ovarian cancer and have been associated with adverse clinical outcomes and survival. Our objective is to investigate overall survival (OS) related to changes in skeletal muscle (SM) for patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking.MethodsOvarian cancer patients (n = 123) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking in the area of Maastricht (the Netherlands) between 2000 and 2014 were included retrospectively. Surface areas of SM and adipose tissue were defined on computed tomography at the level of the third lumbar vertebra. Low SM at baseline and SM changes during chemotherapy were compared with Kaplan Meier curves, and Cox‐regression models were applied to test predictors of OS.ResultsMedian OS for patients who lost SM (n = 83) was 916 ± 99 days, which was significantly different from median OS for patients who maintained or gained SM (n = 40), which was 1431 ± 470 days (P = 0.004). Loss of SM was also a significant predictor of OS in multivariable Cox‐regression analysis (hazard ratio 1.773 (95%CI: 1.018–3.088), P = 0.043). Low baseline SM did not influence survival.ConclusionsPatients with ovarian cancer have a worse survival when they lose SM during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Evaluation of low SM at a specific time point is not prognostic for OS. External and prospective validation of these findings is imperative. Nutritional, pharmacological, and/or physical intervention studies are necessary to establish whether SM impairment can be prevented to prolong ovarian cancer survival.

BackgroundComputed tomography measurements of total skeletal muscle area can detect changes and predict overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. This study investigates whether assessment of psoas muscle area reflects total muscle area and can be used to assess sarcopenia in ovarian cancer patients.MethodsOvarian cancer patients (n = 150) treated with induction chemotherapy and interval debulking were enrolled retrospectively in this longitudinal study. Muscle was measured cross sectionally with computed tomography in three ways: (i) software quantification of total skeletal muscle area (SMA); (ii) software quantification of psoas muscle area (PA); and (iii) manual measurement of length and width of the psoas muscle to derive the psoas surface area (PLW). Pearson correlation between the different methods was studied. Patients were divided into two groups based on the extent of change in muscle area, and agreement was measured with kappa coefficients. Cox‐regression was used to test predictors for OS.ResultsCorrelation between SMA and both psoas muscle area measurements was poor (r = 0.52 and 0.39 for PA and PLW, respectively). After categorizing patients into muscle loss or gain, kappa agreement was also poor for all comparisons (all κ < 0.40). In regression analysis, SMA loss was predictive of poor OS (hazard ratio 1.698 (95%CI 1.038–2.778), P = 0.035). No relationship with OS was seen for PA or PLW loss.ConclusionsChange in psoas muscle area is not representative of total muscle area change and should not be used to substitute total skeletal muscle to predict survival in patients with ovarian cancer.

No abstract

PurposeThe objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography (PET), PET/CT, CT and MRI as whole-body imaging modalities for the detection of local and/or distant recurrent disease in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who have a (high) suspicion of recurrent disease, based on clinical findings or rise in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).MethodsA meta-analysis was undertaken. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies on the accuracy of whole-body imaging for patients with suspected local and/or distant recurrence of their CRC. Additionally, studies had to have included at least 20 patients with CRC and 2 × 2 contingency tables had to be provided or derivable. Articles evaluating only local recurrence or liver metastasis were excluded. Summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed from the data on sensitivity and specificity of individual studies and pooled estimates of diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) and areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated. To test for heterogeneity the Cochran Q test was used.ResultsFourteen observational studies were included which evaluated PET, PET/CT, CT and/or MRI. Study results were available in 12 studies for PET, in 5 studies for CT, in 5 studies for PET/CT and in 1 study for MRI. AUCs for PET, PET/CT and CT were 0.94 (0.90–0.97), 0.94 (0.87–0.98) and 0.83 (0.72–0.90), respectively. In patient based analyses PET/CT had a higher diagnostic performance than PET with an AUC of 0.95 (0.89–0.97) for PET/CT vs 0.92 (0.86–0.96) for PET.ConclusionBoth whole-body PET and PET/CT are very accurate for the detection of local and/or distant recurrent disease in CRC patients with a (high) suspicion of recurrent disease. CT has the lowest diagnostic performance. This difference is probably mainly due to the lower accuracy of CT for detection of extrahepatic metastases (including local recurrence). For clinical practice PET/CT might be the modality of choice when evaluating patients with a (high) suspicion of recurrent disease, because of its best performance in patient based analyses and confident prediction of disease status.

Benign lymph nodes show significant contrast enhancement after gadofosveset injection, while metastatic nodes do not. The uptake of gadofosveset in the nodes also affects the chemical shift artefact encircling the nodes. Combined assessment of these two features on gadofosveset-enhanced MRI provides a high diagnostic performance for diagnosing metastatic lymph nodes in patients with rectal cancer.

No abstract

Although simple rules are useful to distinguish benign from malignant adnexal masses, they are not that simple for untrained examiners. Training with both IOTA terminology and simple rules is necessary before simple rules can be introduced into guidelines and daily clinical practice.

BackgroundEstimating the risk of malignancy is essential in the management of adnexal masses. An accurate differential diagnosis between benign and malignant masses will reduce morbidity and costs due to unnecessary operations, and will improve referral to a gynecologic oncologist for specialized cancer care, which improves outcome and overall survival. The Risk of Malignancy Index is currently the most commonly used method in clinical practice, but has a relatively low diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 75–80 % and specificity 85–90 %). Recent reports show that other methods, such as simple ultrasound-based rules, subjective assessment and (Diffusion Weighted) Magnetic Resonance Imaging might be superior to the RMI in the pre-operative differentiation of adnexal masses.Methods/DesignA prospective multicenter cohort study will be performed in the south of The Netherlands. A total of 270 women diagnosed with at least one pelvic mass that is suspected to be of ovarian origin who will undergo surgery, will be enrolled. We will apply the Risk of Malignancy Index with a cut-off value of 200 and a two-step triage test consisting of simple ultrasound-based rules supplemented -if necessary- with either subjective assessment by an expert sonographer or Magnetic Resonance Imaging with diffusion weighted sequences, to characterize the adnexal masses. The histological diagnosis will be the reference standard. Diagnostic performances will be expressed as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios.DiscussionWe hypothesize that this two-step triage test, including the simple ultrasound-based rules, will have better diagnostic accuracy than the Risk of Malignancy Index and therefore will improve the management of women with adnexal masses. Furthermore, we expect this two-step test to be more cost-effective. If the hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study could have major effects on current guidelines and implementation of the triage test in daily clinical practice could be a possibility.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: registration number NCT02218502