Correlation of surgeon radiology assessment with laparoscopic scoring in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

Nicole D. Fleming The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX info_outline Nicole D. Fleming, Shannon Neville Westin, Larissa Meyer, Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain, Aaron Shafer, Michaela Onstad, Lauren Patterson Cobb, Michael W. Bevers, Jennifer K. Burzawa, Behrouz Zand, Bryan M. Fellman, Amir A. Jazaeri, Charles F. Levenback, Robert L. Coleman, Pamela T. Soliman, Anil K Sood

Authors Nicole D. Fleming The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX info_outline Nicole D. Fleming, Shannon Neville Westin, Larissa Meyer, Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain, Aaron Shafer, Michaela Onstad, Lauren Patterson Cobb, Michael W. Bevers, Jennifer K. Burzawa, Behrouz Zand, Bryan M. Fellman, Amir A. Jazaeri, Charles F. Levenback, Robert L. Coleman, Pamela T. Soliman, Anil K Sood Organizations The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, Univ of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Ctr, Houston, TX, The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX Abstract Disclosures Research Funding U.S. National Institutes of Health Background: To determine the correlation between surgeon radiology assessment and laparoscopic scoring in patients with newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer. Methods: Following IRB approval, 14 gynecologic oncologists from a single institution performed a blinded review of radiology imaging from 20 patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. All patients previously underwent laparoscopic scoring assessment to determine primary resectability at tumor reductive surgery (TRS) using a validated scoring method from April 2013 to December 2017. The patients with predictive index value (PIV) scores < 8 were offered primary surgery and those with a score ≥8 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Surgeons viewed contrasted CT imaging reports and images from all patients in a blinded fashion and recorded PIV scores using the same validated scoring method. Linear mixed models were conducted to calculate the correlation between radiology and laparoscopic score for each surgeon and as a group. Once the model was fit, the inter-class correlation (ICC) and 95% confidence interval was calculated. Results: Radiology review was performed on 20 patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer who underwent laparoscopic scoring assessment. Most patients had stage IIIC disease (85%) and median laparoscopic score was 9 (range 0-14). Surgeon faculty rank included Assistant Professor (n = 5), Associate Professor (n = 4), and Professor (n = 5). Median surgeon experience during the study period with laparoscopic assessment was 13 cases (range 1-28) and TRS was 22.5 cases (range 2-48). The kappa inter-rater agreement was -0.017 (95% CI 0.023 to -0.005) indicating low inter-rater agreement between radiology review and actual laparoscopic score. The ICC in this model was 0.06 (0.02-0.21) indicating that surgeons do not score the same across all the images. When using a clinical cutoff of PIV of 8, the probability of agreement between radiology and actual laparoscopic score was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.49-0.73). Number of laparoscopic cases, TRS cases, or faculty rank was not significantly associated with agreement. Conclusions: Surgeon radiology review did not correlate highly with actual laparoscopic scoring assessment findings in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. 44% of patients in our study may have been inadequately triaged by radiology review alone, which may have led to suboptimal TRS. Our study highlights the utility of laparoscopic scoring assessment to determine resectability over radiology assessment alone in ovarian cancer.