Ultrasound-based Screening for Ovarian Cancer
Author: Dror Nir, PhD
Occasionally, I check for news on ovarian cancer screening. I do that for sentimental reasons; I started the HistoScanning project aiming to develop an effective ultrasound-based screening solution for this cancer.
As awareness for ovarian cancer is highest in the USA, I checked for the latest news on the NCI web-site. I found that to-date: “There is no standard or routine screening test for ovarian cancer. Screening for ovarian cancer has not been proven to decrease the death rate from the disease.
Screening for ovarian cancer is under study and there are screening clinical trials taking place in many parts of the country. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI Web site.”
I also found that:
Estimated new cases and deaths from ovarian cancer in the United States in 2013:
- New cases: 22,240
- Deaths: 14,030
To get an idea on the significance of these numbers, lets compare them to the numbers related to breast cancer:
Estimated new cases and deaths from breast cancer in the United States in 2013:
- New cases: 232,340 (female); 2,240 (male)
- Deaths: 39,620 (female); 410 (male)
Death rate of ovarian cancer patients is almost 4 times higher than the rate in breast cancer patients!
Therefore, I decided to raise awareness to the results achieved for ovarian HistoScanning in a double-blind multicenter European study that was published in European Radiology three years ago. The gynecologists who recruited patients to this study used standard ultrasound machines of GE-Medical. I would like as well to disclose that I am one of the authors of this paper:
A new computer-aided diagnostic tool for non-invasive characterisation of malignant ovarian masses: results of a multicentre validation study, Olivier Lucidarme et.al., European Radiology, August 2010, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 1822-1830
Abstract
Objectives
To prospectively assess an innovative computer-aided diagnostic technology that quantifies characteristic features of backscattered ultrasound and theoretically allows transvaginal sonography (TVS) to discriminate benign from malignant adnexal masses.
Methods
Women (n = 264) scheduled for surgical removal of at least one ovary in five centres were included. Preoperative three-dimensional (3D)-TVS was performed and the voxel data were analysed by the new technology. The findings at 3D-TVS, serum CA125 levels and the TVS-based diagnosis were compared with histology. Cancer was deemed present when invasive or borderline cancerous processes were observed histologically.
Results
Among 375 removed ovaries, 141 cancers (83 adenocarcinomas, 24 borderline, 16 cases of carcinomatosis, nine of metastases and nine others) and 234 non-cancerous ovaries (107 normal, 127 benign tumours) were histologically diagnosed. The new computer-aided technology correctly identified 138/141 malignant lesions and 206/234 non-malignant tissues (98% sensitivity, 88% specificity). There were no false-negative results among the 47 FIGO stage I/II ovarian lesions. Standard TVS and CA125 had sensitivities/specificities of 94%/66% and 89%/75%, respectively. Combining standard TVS and the new technology in parallel significantly improved TVS specificity from 66% to 92% (p < 0.0001).
An example of an ovary considered to be normal with TVS.
The same TVS
false-negative ovary with OVHS-detected foci of malignancy. The presence of an
adenocarcinoma was confirmed histologically.
Conclusions
Computer-aided quantification of backscattered ultrasound is highly sensitive for the diagnosis of malignant ovarian masses.
Personal note:
Based on this study a promising offer for ultrasound-based screening method for ovarian cancer was published in: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 Jan;21(1):35-43. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182000528.: Mathematical models to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses: potential diagnostic improvement using ovarian HistoScanning. Vaes E, Manchanda R, Nir R, Nir D, Bleiberg H, Autier P, Menon U, Robert A.
Regrettably, the results of these studies were never transformed into routine clinical products due to financial reasons.
Other research papers related to the management of Prostate cancer were published on this Scientific Web site:
Beta-Blockers help in better survival in ovarian cancer
Ovarian Cancer and fluorescence-guided surgery: A report
Role of Primary Cilia in Ovarian Cancer
Squeezing Ovarian Cancer Cells to Predict Metastatic Potential: Cell Stiffness as Possible Biomarker
Warning signs may lead to better early detection of ovarian cancer
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.