Literature DB >> 23022593

Early-stage cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound - a European multicenter trial.

Elisabeth Epstein1, Antonia Testa, Adrius Gaurilcikas, Alessia Di Legge, Liveke Ameye, Vaida Atstupenaite, Anna Lia Valentini, Benedetta Gui, Nils-Olof Wallengren, Sonja Pudaric, Arvydas Cizauskas, Anna Måsbäck, Gian Franco Zannoni, Päivi Kannisto, Michal Zikan, Ivana Pinkavova, Andrea Burgetova, Pavel Dundr, Kristyna Nemejcova, David Cibula, Daniela Fischerova.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the preoperative assessment of early-stage cervical cancer using pathologic findings as the reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective multi-center trial enrolling 209 consecutive women with early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO IA2-IIA) scheduled for surgery. The following parameters were assessed on US and MRI and compared to pathology: remaining tumor, size, tumor stromal invasion<2/3 (superficial) or ≥2/3 (deep), and parametrial invasion.
RESULTS: Complete data were available for 182 patients. The agreement between US and pathology was excellent for detecting tumors, correctly classifying bulky tumors (>4cm), and detecting deep stromal invasion (kappa values 0.84, 0.82, and 0.81 respectively); and good for classifying small tumors (<2cm) and detecting parametrial invasion (kappa values 0.78 and 0.75, respectively). The agreement between MRI and histology was good for classifying tumors as <2cm, or >4cm, and detecting deep stromal invasion (kappa values 0.71, 0.76, and 0.77, respectively). It was moderately accurate in tumor detection, and in assessing parametrial invasion (kappa values 0.52 and 0.45, respectively). The agreement between histology and US was significantly better in assessing residual tumor (p<0.001) and parametrial invasion (p<0.001) than the results obtained by MRI. Imaging methods were not significantly influenced by previous cone biopsy.
CONCLUSION: US and MRI are highly accurate for the preoperative assessment of women with early-stage cervical cancer, although US may be more accurate in detecting residual tumors and assessing parametrial invasion.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23022593     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.09.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  27 in total

Review 1.  The role of ultrasound in the assessment of uterine cervical cancer.

Authors:  Juan Luis Alcázar; Sara Arribas; José Angel Mínguez; Matías Jurado
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2014-10-08

2.  Staging, recurrence and follow-up of uterine cervical cancer using MRI: Updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology after revised FIGO staging 2018.

Authors:  Lucia Manganaro; Yulia Lakhman; Nishat Bharwani; Benedetta Gui; Silvia Gigli; Valeria Vinci; Stefania Rizzo; Aki Kido; Teresa Margarida Cunha; Evis Sala; Andrea Rockall; Rosemarie Forstner; Stephanie Nougaret
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Magnetic resonance imaging for detection of parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature between 2012 and 2016.

Authors:  Sungmin Woo; Chong Hyun Suh; Sang Youn Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho; Seung Hyup Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Local experience in cervical cancer imaging: Comparison in tumour assessment between TRUS and MRI.

Authors:  Claudia Ordeanu; Diana Cristina Pop; Radu Badea; Csaba Csutak; Nicolae Todor; Calin Ordeanu; Reka Kerekes; Ovidiu Coza; Viorica Nagy; Patriciu Achimas-Cadariu; Alexandru Irimie
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2015-02-17

5.  Patterns of care in patients with cervical cancer 2012: results of a survey among German radiotherapy departments and out-patient health care centers.

Authors:  S Marnitz; C Köhler; A Rauer; A Schneider; V Budach; A Tsunoda; M Mangler
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  Cervical cancer in pregnant women: treat, wait or interrupt? Assessment of current clinical guidelines, innovations and controversies.

Authors:  Sileny N Han; Mina Mhallem Gziri; Kristel Van Calsteren; Frédéric Amant
Journal:  Ther Adv Med Oncol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 8.168

Review 7.  Ultrasound in gynecological cancer: is it time for re-evaluation of its uses?

Authors:  Daniela Fischerova; David Cibula
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.075

8.  Aspects of Therapy for Cervical Cancer in Germany 2012 - Results from a Survey of German Gynaecological Hospitals.

Authors:  M Mangler; N Zech; A Schneider; C Köhler; S Marnitz
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.915

Review 9.  Implications of the new FIGO staging and the role of imaging in cervical cancer.

Authors:  Aki Kido; Yuji Nakamoto
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 3.629

10.  The role of MRI in cervical cancer > 2 cm (FIGO stage IB2-IIA1) conservatively treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by conization: a pilot study.

Authors:  Luca Russo; Benedetta Gui; Maura Miccò; Camilla Panico; Rosa De Vincenzo; Francesco Fanfani; Giovanni Scambia; Riccardo Manfredi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 6.313

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.