PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to prospectively determine the diagnostic capabilities of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in detecting myometrial and cervical invasion and lymph node involvement in endometrial carcinoma and to identify the causes of errors in staging endometrial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with a histological diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma underwent preoperative MR imaging. MR findings were compared with surgical staging, considered as the standard of reference. RESULTS: In assessing myometrial invasion, MR imaging showed 70% accuracy, 80% sensitivity, 40% specificity, 80% positive predictive value (PPV), and 40% negative predictive value (NPV). In detecting cervical invasion, MR imaging had 95% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, 94.4% specificity, 66.7% PPV, and 100% NPV. In evaluating lymph node involvement, MR imaging showed 100% accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV. Errors in evaluating myometrial invasion were caused by polypoid tumour, adenomyosis and leiomyomas, whereas those in evaluating cervical invasion were caused by dilatation and curettage. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging is a reliable technique for preoperative evaluation of endometrial carcinoma. Its main limitation is differentiating between stage IA and IB carcinomas, which is not highly important for surgical planning. Cooperation between the gynaecologist and radiologist is mandatory to avoid staging errors.
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to prospectively determine the diagnostic capabilities of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in detecting myometrial and cervical invasion and lymph node involvement in endometrial carcinoma and to identify the causes of errors in staging endometrial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with a histological diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma underwent preoperative MR imaging. MR findings were compared with surgical staging, considered as the standard of reference. RESULTS: In assessing myometrial invasion, MR imaging showed 70% accuracy, 80% sensitivity, 40% specificity, 80% positive predictive value (PPV), and 40% negative predictive value (NPV). In detecting cervical invasion, MR imaging had 95% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, 94.4% specificity, 66.7% PPV, and 100% NPV. In evaluating lymph node involvement, MR imaging showed 100% accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV. Errors in evaluating myometrial invasion were caused by polypoid tumour, adenomyosis and leiomyomas, whereas those in evaluating cervical invasion were caused by dilatation and curettage. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging is a reliable technique for preoperative evaluation of endometrial carcinoma. Its main limitation is differentiating between stage IA and IB carcinomas, which is not highly important for surgical planning. Cooperation between the gynaecologist and radiologist is mandatory to avoid staging errors.
Authors: Andrea G Rockall; Syed A Sohaib; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Syed A Babar; Naveena Singh; Arjun R Jeyarajah; David H Oram; Ian J Jacobs; John H Shepherd; Rodney H Reznek Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Sanjuán; G Escaramís; J R Ayuso; S Martínez Román; A Torné; J Ordi; J A Lejárcegui; J Pahisa Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Mukesh G Harisinghani; Jelle Barentsz; Peter F Hahn; Willem M Deserno; Shahin Tabatabaei; Christine Hulsbergen van de Kaa; Jean de la Rosette; Ralph Weissleder Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Casper Reijnen; Joanna IntHout; Leon F A G Massuger; Fleur Strobbe; Heidi V N Küsters-Vandevelde; Ingfrid S Haldorsen; Marc P L M Snijders; Johanna M A Pijnenborg Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-06-11