BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
First published online March 30, 2009
British Journal of Radiology (2009) 82, 640-644
© 2009 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/12716831
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BURKILL, G J C
Right arrow Articles by KING, D M
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BURKILL, G J C
Right arrow Articles by KING, D M

Significance of tumour calcification in ovarian carcinoma

G J C BURKILL, BSc, MRCP, FRCR 1 S D ALLEN, MRCS, FRCR 1 R P A'HERN, MSc 2 M E GORE, PhD, FRCP 3 and D M KING, DMRD, FRCR 1

Departments of 1 Radiology, 2 Medical Statistics and 3 Medical Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, Fulham Road, London SW3 6JJ, UK

Correspondence: S D Allen, Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT, UK. E-mail: steven.allen{at}rmh.nhs.uk

The purpose of this study was to assess the pattern and significance of tumour calcification in ovarian carcinoma. Patients with calcifying ovarian carcinoma were identified from radiological reports. Their tumour characteristics, serum calcium levels, treatment and survival were compared with a control group of patients with non-calcifying disease. Patterns and distribution of calcification were assessed. Available serial CT scans were reviewed for changes in both soft-tissue and calcified disease according to RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumours) criteria where feasible. Temporal changes in calcification were correlated with changes in soft tissue disease and CA125 levels. The calcified group numbered 122 (22 other patients had calcifying tumour but insufficient clinical data). Calcification in ovarian carcinoma had a prevalence of 8% (144/1721) in our series. There was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the two groups in the distribution of histological type, with serous tumours being more common in the calcified group (74/122 (61%)) than in the controls (509/1498 (34%)). The calcified tumour patients tended to have lower grade disease (p<0.001). No differences between the groups were found for age, treatment or serum calcium levels. Distribution of calcification was diffusely peritoneal in 34 patients, in association with a pelvic mass in 15, nodal in 11 and within the anterior abdominal wall in 2. There was no correlation between changes in calcification on serial CT scans and corresponding CA125 levels. In conclusion, calcification tends to occur most commonly in serous cystadenocarcinomata and in tumours of lower grade. Changes in calcification cannot be used as a marker of disease response.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2009 by the British Institute of Radiology.