Diaphragmatic smears are not of additional benefit in the detection of peritoneal spread in gynecological cancers

Montavon,Celine; Mirza,Uzma; Fedier,Andre; Schoetzau,Andreas; Zanetti Dällenbach,Rosanna; Heinzelmann‑Schwarz,Viola

doi:10.3892/etm.2018.5957

Diaphragmatic smears are not of additional benefit in the detection of peritoneal spread in gynecological cancers

Authors:
- Celine Montavon
- Uzma Mirza
- Andre Fedier
- Andreas Schoetzau
- Rosanna Zanetti Dällenbach
- Viola Heinzelmann‑Schwarz
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, Hospital for Women, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, CH‑4031 Basel, Switzerland, Ovarian Cancer Research, Department of Biomedicine, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, CH‑4031 Basel, Switzerland
Published online on: March 13, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.5957
Pages: 4199-4204
Copyright: © Montavon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Peritoneal biopsies (PB) and peritoneal washing (PW) are routine measures in abdominal staging of gynecological malignancies and are used particularly for the assessment of occult microscopic tumor spread to the peritoneal surface including the diaphragm. Cytological diaphragmatic smears (DS) have been suggested as a supplemental tool; however, they are not routinely taken and their usefulness is still unclear. The present study retrospectively evaluated whether DS provide an additional benefit over PB and PW for the detection of peritoneal malignancies in patients with gynecological cancer. The data from patients who underwent laparotomy for suspected gynecological cancer and had DS and either PB, PW or ascites were reviewed. Sensitivity and specificity, and the number upstaged patients were determined. A total of 43 patients were excluded due to benign diagnosis (those with negative DS or PW) and 2 out of the remaining had 2 carcinomas simultaneously. Among these 41 malignancies, DS were positive in 12, PW in 18 and PB in 19 cases. No case was DS‑positive while negative for both PB and PW. Four cases were missed when only PB and 5 when only PW was performed. Notably, no case of peritoneal disease was identified solely on positive DS, indicating that all 23 positive cases (presence of occult peritoneal disease in 56.1%) were identified by PB and PW together (100% sensitivity; 62% specificity). In addition, none of the cases was upstaged solely on positive DS results. Taken together, these data demonstrated that DS do not present an additional benefit to PW and PB in the detection of peritoneal gynecological disease.

View Figures

View References

1	Young RC, Decker DG, Wharton JT, Piver MS, Sindelar WF, Edwards BK and Smith JP: Staging laparotomy in early ovarian cancer. JAMA. 250:3072–3076. 1983. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Grabowski JP, Harter P, Buhrmann C, Lorenz D, Hils R, Kommoss S, Traut A and du Bois A: Re-operation outcome in patients referred to a gynecologic oncology center with presumed ovarian cancer FIGO I–IIIA after sub-standard initial surgery. Surg Oncol. 21:31–35. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Trimbos JB, Vergote I, Bolis G, Vermorken JB, Mangioni C, Madronal C, Franchi M, Tateo S, Zanetta G, Scarfone G, et al: Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy and surgical staging in early-stage ovarian carcinoma: European organisation for research and treatment of cancer-adjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian neoplasm trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 95:113–125. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Timmers PJ, Zwinderman AH, Coens C, Vergote I and Trimbos JB: Understanding the problem of inadequately staging early ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer. 46:880–884. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Ferlay J, Autier P, Boniol M, Heanue M, Colombet M and Boyle P: Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol. 18:581–592. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones H III, Ngan HY and Pecorelli S: FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO committee on gynecologic oncology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 70:209–262. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, Harter P, Ray-Coquard I and Pfisterer J: Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: By the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l'Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer. 115:1234–1244. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Keetle WC and Elkin HB: Experience with radioactive colloidal gold in the treatment of ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 71:553–568. 1956. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Creasman WT and Rutlidge F: The prognostic value peritoneal cytology in gynecologic malignant disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 110:773–781. 1971. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Garg G, Gao F, Wright JD, Hagemann AR, Mutch DG and Powell MA: Positive peritoneal cytology is an independent risk-factor in early stage endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 128:77–82. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Fadare O, Mariappan MR, Hileeto D, Wang S, McAlpine JN and Rimm DL: Upstaging based solely on positive peritoneal washing does not affect outcome in endometrial cancer. Mod Pathol. 18:673–680. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Luesley DM, Williams DR, Ward K, Redman CR and Lawton FG: Prospective comparative cytologic study of direct peritoneal smears and lavage fluids in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and benign gynecologic disease. Acta Cytol. 34:539–544. 1990.PubMed/NCBI
13	Jadhon ME, Morgan MA, Kelsten ML, Carlson JA Jr and Mikuta JJ: Cytologic smears of peritoneal surfaces as a sampling technique in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 75:102–105. 1990.PubMed/NCBI
14	Jacques SM and Selvaggi SM: Multiple peritoneal cytologies collected during laparotomy for gynecologic malignancy. Diagn Cytopthol. 7:482–486. 1991. View Article : Google Scholar
15	Sehouli J, Senyuva F, Fotopoulou C, Neumann U, Denkert C, Werner L and Gülten OO: Intra-Abdominal tumor dissemination pattern and surgical outcome in 214 Patients with primary ovarian cancer. J Surg Oncol. 99:424–427. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Soper JT: Management of early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 37:423–438. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Ozols RF, Rubin SC and Thomas G: Epithelial ovarian cancerHoskins WJ, Perez CA and Young RC: Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott & Wilkins; pp. 895–988. 2005
18	Wheeless CR Jr and Roenneburg ML: Staging of Gynecologic Oncology Patients With Exploratory Laparotomy. Atlas of pelvic surgery (On-Line Edition). http://www.atlasofpelvicsurgery.com/10MalignantDisease/1StagingofGynecologicOncologyPatientsWithExploratoryLaparotomy/cha10sec1.html
19	NCCN: Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (including Fallopian Tube Cancer and Primary Peritoneal Cancer). Version 2. 2013.https://www.nccn.org/
20	Lee JY, Kim HS, Chung HH, Kim JW, Park NH and Song YS: The role of omentectomy and random peritoneal biopsies as part of comprehensive surgical staging in apparent early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 21:2762–2766. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Paik ES, Lee YY, Lee EJ, Choi CH, Kim TJ, Lee JW, Bae DS and Kim BG: Survival analysis of revised 2013 FIGO staging classification of epithelial ovarian cancer and comparison with previous FIGO staging classification. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 58:124–134. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Piver MS, Barlow JJ and Lele SB: Incidence of subclinical metastases in stage I and II ovarian carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 52:100–104. 1978.PubMed/NCBI
23	Einenkel J, Ott R, Handzel R, Braumann DU and Horn LC: Characteristics and management of diaphragm involvement in patients with primary advanced stage ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 19:1288–1297. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Eltabbakh GH and Mount SL: Comparison of diaphragmatic wash and scrape specimens in staging of women with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 81:461–465. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Lee JY, Kim TH, Suh DH, Kim JW, Kim HS, Chung HH, Park NH, Song YS and Kang SB: Impact of guideline adherence on patient outcomes in early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 41:585–591. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Buchsbaum HJ and Lifshitz S: Staging and surgical evaluation of ovarian cancer. Semin Oncol. 11:227–237. 1984.PubMed/NCBI
27	Powless CA, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Aletti GD and Cliby WA: Random peritoneal biopsies have limited value in staging of apparent early stage epithelial ovarian cancer after thorough exploration. Gynecol Oncol. 115:86–89. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Sneige N, Thomison JB, Malpica A, Gong Y, Ensor J and Silva EG: Peritoneal washing cytologic analysis of ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential to detect peritoneal implants and predict clinical outcome. Cancer Cytopathol. 120:238–244. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Giordano G, Varotti E, Brigati F and Berretta R: The value of peritoneal washing cytology during intra-abdominal surgery for female genital tract neoplasms. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 12:e95–e101. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Davidson W, Madan R, O'Neil M, Tawfik OW and Fan F: Utility of peritoneal washing cytology in staging and prognosis of ovarian and fallopian tube neoplasms: A 10-year retrospective analysis. Ann Diagn Pathol. 22:54–57. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Anastasiadis PG, Romanidis KN, Polichronidis A, Koutlaki NG, Tamiolakis D and Simopoulos K: The contribution of rapid intraoperative cytology to the improvement of ovarian cancer staging. Gynecol Oncol. 86:244–249. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Binesh F, Akhavan A, Behniafard N, Zabihi S and Hosseinizadeh E: Prognostic value of peritoneal washing cytology in gynecologic malignancies: A controversial issue. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 15:9405–9410. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Garg G, Gao F, Wright JD, Hagemann AR, Zighelboim I, Mutch DG and Powell MA: The risk of lymph-node metastasis with positive peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 23:90–97. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Kashimura M, Sugihara K, Toki N, Matsuura Y, Kawagoe T, Kamura T, Kaku T, Tsuruchi N, Nakashima H and Sakai H: The significance of peritoneal cytology in uterine cervix and endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 67:285–290. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Havrilesky LJ, Cragun JM, Calingaert B, Secord Alvarez A, Valea FA, Clarke-Pearson DL, Berchuck A and Soper JT: The prognostic significance of positive peritoneal cytology and adnexal/serosal metastasis in stage IIIA endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 104:401–405. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
36	Wong FC, Pang CP, Tang SK, Tung SY, Leung TW, Sze WK and Cheung KB: Treatment results of endometrial carcinoma with positive peritoneal washing, adnexal involvement and serosal involvement. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 16:350–355. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
37	Zuna RE and Behrens A: Peritoneal washing cytology in gynecologic cancers: Long term follow up of 355 patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 88:980–987. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Mathew S and Erozan YS: Significance of peritoneal washings in gynecologic oncology. The experience with 901 intraoperative washings at an academic medical center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 121:604–606. 1997.PubMed/NCBI
39	Lewin SN, Herzog TJ, Medel Barrena NI, Deutsch I, Burke WM, Sun X and Wright J: Comparative performance of the 2009 international Federation of gynecology and obstetrics' staging system for uterine corpus cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 116:1141–1149. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI