Table 3:
Diagnostic accuracy of LS to predict unresectable disease in the studies included.
| Author | Year | Study type | FIGO stage | N pat |
Reference standard performed | Index test # | Specificity | Sensitivity | NPV | PPV | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rutten | 2017 | Randomized controlled trial | IIIc/IV | *71 | 68 | TP N/A | FP N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0.91 |
| FN 6 | TN 62 | |||||||||||
| 2 | Fagotti | 2005 | Prospective | AEOC | 64 | 64 | TP 12 | FP 0 | 1.0‡ (95 % CI: 0.90–1.0) | 0.71‡ (95 % CI: 0.44–0.90) | 0.87‡ | 1.0‡ |
| FN 5‡ | TN 34‡ | |||||||||||
| 3 | Vergote | 1998 | Retrospective | AEOC | 285 | 28 | TP N/A | FP N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0.75 |
| FN 7 | FP 21 | |||||||||||
| 4 | Angioli | 2005 | Not reported | IIIc/IV | 87 | 53 | TP N/A | FP N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0.96 |
| FN 2 | TN 51 | |||||||||||
| 5 | Brun | 2009 | Retrospective | AEOC | 55 | 26 | TP N/A | FP N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0.69 |
| FN 8 | TN 18 | |||||||||||
| 6 | Deffieux | 2006 | Not reported | IIIc/IV | 15 | 11 | TP N/A | FP N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0.91 |
| FN 1 | TN 10 | |||||||||||
| Total | 522 | 224 | 0.75 to 1.0 | |||||||||
There is a high risk of bias since 3 out of 5 studies (Vergote, Angioli, and Ruffieux) did not perform the reference standard in all patients; in Rutten, reference standard was performed primarily or after NACT.
Legend: AEOC: Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer; FIGO: Fédération International de Gynécologie Oncologique; NACT: neoadjuvant chemotherapy; N pat: number of patients; PDS: primary debulking surgery; Reference standard=PDS; *: laparoscopy group only, FIGO stage IIIC/IV only; ‡: 13 undetermined cases were excluded, therefore sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV overestimated; N/A: not available; # Index test positive=unresectable disease at PDS (futile laparotomy); Index test negative=resectable disease at PDS. TP: true positive; FP: false positive; FN: false negative; TN: true negative.