Optimal cytoreduction: is a CT's picture worth a surgeon's word?

INTRODUCTION: The presence of residual disease after cytoreductive surgery is subjectively determined by the surgeon at the end of the operation. Nevertheless, in up to 21-49% of CT scans, residual disease can be found. The aim of this study was to establish the relationship between post-surgical CT findings after optimal cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer and oncological outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ovarian cancer (FIGO II and IV), diagnosed between 2007 and 2019 in Hospital La Fe Valencia, in whom cytoreductive surgery was performed, achieving R0 or R1, were assessed for eligibility (n = 440). A total of 323 patients were excluded because a post-operative CT scan was not performed between the third and eighth post-surgery week and prior to the start of chemotherapy. RESULTS: 117 patients were finally included. The CT findings were classified into three categories: no evidence, suspicious or conclusive of residual tumour/progressive disease. 29.9% of CT scans were "conclusive of residual tumour/progressive disease". No differences were found when the DFS (p = 0.158) and OS (p = 0.215) of the three groups were compared (p = 0.158). CONCLUSION: After cytoreduction in ovarian cancer with no macroscopic disease or residual tumour < 1 cm result, up to 29.9% of post-operative CT scans before chemotherapy found measurable residual or progressive disease. Notwithstanding, a worse DFS or OS was not associated with this group of patients.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced case-control analysis in 3T MRI of prostate cancer can help to characterize tumor aggressiveness.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to establish normality and tumor tissue ranges for perfusion parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR of the peripheral prostate at 3T and to compare the diagnostic performance of quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients with prostate carcinomas (18 Gleason-6, 15 Gleason-7, and 3 Gleason-8) and 33 healthy subjects were included. Image analysis workflow comprised four steps: manual segmentation of whole prostate and lesions, series registration, voxelwise T1 mapping and calculation of pharmacokinetic and semi-quantitative parameters. RESULTS: Ktrans, ve, upslope and AUC60 showed statistically significant differences between healthy peripheral areas and tumors. Curve type showed no association with healthy/tumor peripheral areas (chi-square=0.702). Areas under the ROC curves were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.54-0.75), 0.70 (0.60-0.80), 0.62 (0.51-0.72) and 0.63 (0.52-0.74) for Ktrans, ve, upslope and AUC60, respectively. The optimal cutoff values were: Ktrans=0.21min-1 (sensitivity=0.61, specificity=0.64), ve=0.36 (0.63, 0.71), upslope=0.59 (0.59, 0.59) and AUC60=2.4 (0.63, 0.64). Significant differences were found between Gleason scores 6 and 7 for normalized Ktrans, upslope and AUC60, with good diagnostic accuracy (area under ROC curve 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60-1.00). CONCLUSION: Quantitative (Ktrans and ve) and semi-quantitative (upslope and AUC60) perfusion parameters showed significant differences between tumors and control areas in the peripheral prostate. Normalized Ktrans, upslope and AUC60 values might characterize tumor aggressiveness.