OBJECTIVE: A recent revision of the FIGO staging system does not recommend the mandatory use of cystoscopy and sigmoidoscopy. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical utility of CT or MRI scans for ruling out bladder or rectal invasion and determine the indication for endoscopy in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 769 patients with cervical cancer, who underwent imaging and endoscopic work-up between January 1997 and December 2010. Using endoscopy as the standard reference for comparison, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of the imaging modality for bladder or rectal invasion. RESULTS: The CT scan showed 68.2% and 85.7% for sensitivity and 96.4% and 98.9% for specificity in detecting bladder and rectal invasion, respectively. CT scan provided a low PPV (51.7%, 54.5%) and a high NPV (98.2%, 99.8%). MRI scan showed 88.0% and 75.0% for sensitivity and 93.1% and 98.9% for specificity in detecting bladder and rectal invasion, respectively. MRI scan provided a low PPV (35.6%, 42.9%) and a high NPV (99.4%, 99.7%). The accuracies of CT and MRI scans in identifying bladder invasion were 94.9% and 92.8%, respectively. The accuracies of CT and MRI in identifying rectal invasion were 98.7% and 98.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that additional invasive endoscopy is not necessary for patients who present with no invasion on imaging work-up, and therefore, endoscopy should be considered a tool for confirming cases that are positive for invasion based on imaging work-up.
OBJECTIVE: A recent revision of the FIGO staging system does not recommend the mandatory use of cystoscopy and sigmoidoscopy. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical utility of CT or MRI scans for ruling out bladder or rectal invasion and determine the indication for endoscopy in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 769 patients with cervical cancer, who underwent imaging and endoscopic work-up between January 1997 and December 2010. Using endoscopy as the standard reference for comparison, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of the imaging modality for bladder or rectal invasion. RESULTS: The CT scan showed 68.2% and 85.7% for sensitivity and 96.4% and 98.9% for specificity in detecting bladder and rectal invasion, respectively. CT scan provided a low PPV (51.7%, 54.5%) and a high NPV (98.2%, 99.8%). MRI scan showed 88.0% and 75.0% for sensitivity and 93.1% and 98.9% for specificity in detecting bladder and rectal invasion, respectively. MRI scan provided a low PPV (35.6%, 42.9%) and a high NPV (99.4%, 99.7%). The accuracies of CT and MRI scans in identifying bladder invasion were 94.9% and 92.8%, respectively. The accuracies of CT and MRI in identifying rectal invasion were 98.7% and 98.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that additional invasive endoscopy is not necessary for patients who present with no invasion on imaging work-up, and therefore, endoscopy should be considered a tool for confirming cases that are positive for invasion based on imaging work-up.
Authors: Hedvig Hricak; Constantine Gatsonis; Dennis S Chi; Marco A Amendola; Kathy Brandt; Lawrence H Schwartz; Susan Koelliker; Evan S Siegelman; Jeffrey J Brown; Robert B McGhee; Revathy Iyer; Kenneth M Vitellas; Bradley Snyder; Harry J Long; James V Fiorica; Donald G Mitchell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H Hawighorst; S O Schoenberg; P G Knapstein; M V Knopp; U Schaeffer; M Essig; G van Kaick Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1998 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826