In Vivo Ultrasound Molecular Imaging in the Evaluation of Complex Ovarian Masses: A Practical Guide to Correlation with Ex Vivo Immunohistochemistry

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in women and the most lethal gynecologic cancer. It is curable when discovered at an early stage, but usually remains asymptomatic until advanced stages. It is crucial to diagnose the disease before it metastasizes to distant organs for optimal patient management. Conventional transvaginal ultrasound imaging offers limited sensitivity and specificity in the ovarian cancer detection. With molecularly targeted ligands addressing targets, such as kinase insert domain receptor (KDR), attached to contrast microbubbles, ultrasound molecular imaging (USMI) can be used to detect, characterize and monitor ovarian cancer at a molecular level. In this article, the authors propose a standardized protocol is proposed for the accurate correlation between in‐ vivo transvaginal KDR‐targeted USMI and ex vivo histology and immunohistochemistry in clinical translational studies. The detailed procedures of in vivo USMI and ex vivo immunohistochemistry are described for four molecular markers, CD31 and KDR with a focus on how to enable the accurate correlation between in vivo imaging findings and ex vivo expression of the molecular markers, even if not the entire tumor could can be imaged by USMI, which is not an uncommon scenario in clinical translational studies. This work aims to enhance the workflow and the accuracy of characterization of ovarian masses on transvaginal USMI using histology and immunohistochemistry as reference standards, which involves sonographers, radiologists, surgeons, and pathologists in a highly collaborative research effort of USMI in cancer.

[1]  A. Lutz,et al.  Interobserver agreement between eight observers using IOTA simple rules and O-RADS lexicon descriptors for adnexal masses , 2022, Abdominal Radiology.

[2]  K. Maturen,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) Ultrasound Risk Score in Women in the United States , 2022, JAMA network open.

[3]  K. Maturen,et al.  Ovarian Cancer Detection in Average-Risk Women: Classic- versus Nonclassic-appearing Adnexal Lesions at US. , 2022, Radiology.

[4]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2022 , 2022, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[5]  A. Lutz,et al.  Ovarian Cancer - Current Status of Blood Biomarker and Imaging Screening Strategies , 2020 .

[6]  Arash Salmaninejad,et al.  Current insights into the metastasis of epithelial ovarian cancer - hopes and hurdles , 2020, Cellular Oncology.

[7]  M. Birrer,et al.  Biomarkers in ovarian cancer: To be or not to be , 2019, Cancer.

[8]  S. Lockwood,et al.  Ovarian Cancer: An Integrated Review. , 2019, Seminars in oncology nursing.

[9]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Risk of Malignant Ovarian Cancer Based on Ultrasonography Findings in a Large Unselected Population , 2019, JAMA internal medicine.

[10]  R. Edwards,et al.  Diagnosis and Treatment of Ovarian Cancer. , 2018, Hematology/oncology clinics of North America.

[11]  B. Guo,et al.  The prognostic significance of high/positive expression of tissue VEGF in ovarian cancer , 2018, Oncotarget.

[12]  R. Rouzier,et al.  The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer , 2018, Expert review of anticancer therapy.

[13]  R. Bast,et al.  Screening for ovarian cancer: imaging challenges and opportunities for improvement , 2018, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[14]  K. Zukotynski,et al.  Molecular Imaging and Precision Medicine in Uterine and Ovarian Cancers. , 2017, PET clinics.

[15]  R. Forstner,et al.  Update on Imaging of Ovarian Cancer , 2016, Current Radiology Reports.

[16]  D. Cibula,et al.  Ultrasound in Gynecological Cancer: Is It Time for Re-evaluation of Its Uses? , 2015, Current Oncology Reports.

[17]  François Tranquart,et al.  Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor type 2-targeted contrast-enhanced US of pancreatic cancer neovasculature in a genetically engineered mouse model: potential for earlier detection. , 2015, Radiology.

[18]  Yu Sun,et al.  Targeted contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of angiogenesis in an orthotopic mouse tumor model of renal carcinoma. , 2014, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[19]  J. Chan The Wonderful Colors of the Hematoxylin–Eosin Stain in Diagnostic Surgical Pathology , 2014, International journal of surgical pathology.

[20]  A. Weaver,et al.  The use of CT findings to predict extent of tumor at primary surgery for ovarian cancer. , 2013, Gynecologic oncology.

[21]  H. Leong-Poi,et al.  Optimization of Ultrasound-mediated Anti-angiogenic Cancer Gene Therapy , 2013, Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids.

[22]  Fabian Kiessling,et al.  Molecular and functional ultrasound imaging in differently aggressive breast cancer xenografts using two novel ultrasound contrast agents (BR55 and BR38) , 2011, European Radiology.

[23]  Sanjiv S Gambhir,et al.  Early diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma: is a solution in sight? , 2011, Radiology.

[24]  A. Maclean,et al.  Immunohistochemical expression of VEGF predicts response to platinum based chemotherapy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer , 2011, Angiogenesis.

[25]  F. Kiessling,et al.  Functional and molecular ultrasound imaging: concepts and contrast agents. , 2009, Current medicinal chemistry.

[26]  P. Balan Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of pelvic pathology. , 2006, European journal of radiology.

[27]  E. Darai,et al.  CD31 expression in benign, borderline, and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors: an immunohistochemical and serological analysis. , 1998, Gynecologic oncology.

[28]  R. Golding,et al.  Comparative evaluation of diagnostic methods in ovarian carcinoma with emphasis on CT and MRI. , 1994, Gynecologic oncology.

[29]  K. Hubner,et al.  Assessment of primary and metastatic ovarian cancer by positron emission tomography (PET) using 2-[18F]deoxyglucose (2-[18F]FDG). , 1993, Gynecologic oncology.

[30]  G. V. von Schulthess,et al.  Value of (18F)-FDG positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing primary and recurrent ovarian carcinoma , 2000, European Radiology.

[31]  C. Muhle,et al.  Critical evaluation of the specificity of MRI and TVUS for differentiation of malignant from benign adnexal lesions , 1998, European Radiology.