ULTRASOUND-GUIDED TREPAN BIOPSY AS A METHOD OF HISTOLOGICAL VERIFICATION OF OVARIAN CANCER
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15407/oncology.2025.04.263Keywords:
ovarian cancer, trepan-biopsy, diagnostic laparoscopy, ultrasound guidance, histological verification, oncogynecologyAbstract
Summary. Aim: to compare the effectiveness and safety of two methods of histological verification of ovarian cancer – diagnostic laparoscopy and ultrasound-guided percutaneous trepan-biopsy, taking into account the frequency of obtaining an informative pathohistological conclusion, the frequency of complications and organizational aspects. Object and methods: a retrospective analysis of data from 2 cohorts of patients with ovarian cancer was conducted. Group I included 42 patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy in 2019–2022 to confirm the diagnosis. Group II included 43 patients who underwent ultrasound-guided trepan-biopsy of ovarian tumors or peritoneal deposits in 2022–2025. The number of informative histopathological findings, the frequency of complications, the need for a repeat procedure, and the duration of hospital stay were analyzed. Results: diagnostic laparoscopy provided histological verification in 85.7% patients; in 14.3% cases, the material was uninformative, and all these patients underwent a repeated trepan-biopsy, which confirmed the diagnosis of ovarian cancer and made it possible to start treatment. The diagnostic success in the trepan-biopsy group was 95.4%; The material obtained during biopsy was uninformative in 4.7% patients. No complications after trepan-biopsy were detected. Conclusions: ultrasound-guided trepan-biopsy demonstrates a higher frequency of successful histological verification and a better safety profile than diagnostic laparoscopy. There were no complications in trepan-biopsy group versus 7 cases of complications in the diagnostic laparoscopy group. The average length of stay of patients was shorter in the trepan-biopsy group. Due to minimal trauma, the possibility of outpatient performance and rapid obtaining of the result, trepan-biopsy can be considered as the method of choice for verification of inoperable and widespread forms of ovarian cancer.
References
Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, et al. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today – Ukraine Fact Sheet. GLOBOCAN 2022 (version 1.1). Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2024. Available from: https://gco.iarc.who.int/media/globocan/factsheets/populations/804 ukraine fact sheet.pdf
Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (10): 943–53. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0908806.
Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M, et al. Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2015; 386 (9990): 249–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62223-6.
Onda T, Satoh T, Saito T, et al. Comparison of treatment invasiveness between upfront debulking surgery versus interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers in a phase III randomised trial: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0602. Eur J Cancer 2016; 64: 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.05.017.
Lee YJ, Chung YS, Lee JY, et al. Role of diagnostic laparoscopy in deciding primary treatment in advanced‐stage ovarian cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 2023; 34 (2):e17. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e17.
Asp M, Mockute I, Måsbäck A, et al. Tru-cut biopsy in gynecological cancer: adequacy, accuracy, safety and clinical applicability. J Multidiscip Healthc 2023; 16: 1367–77. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S39678.
