OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW) MR imaging in detecting deep myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer, using surgical-pathological staging as reference standard. METHODS: After searching a wide range of electronic databases and screening titles/abstracts, we obtained full papers for potentially eligible studies and evaluated according to predefined inclusion criteria. Quality assessment was conducted by adapting the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. From each study, we extracted information on diagnostic performance of DW and DCE sequences. After exploring heterogeneity, we adopted a bivariate generalized linear mixed model to compare the effect of the two MR sequences jointly on sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Nine studies (442 patients) were considered. Significant evidence of heterogeneity was found only for specificity, both in DW and DCE imaging (I (2) = 70.8 % and 70.6 %). Pooled sensitivity of DW and DCE was 0.86 and specificity did not significantly differ (p = 0.16) between the two sequences (DW = 0.86 and DCE = 0.82). No difference was found between 3-T and 1.5-T MR. There was no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: MR diagnostic accuracy in presurgical detection of deep myometrial infiltration in endometrial cancer is high. DCE and DW imaging do not differ in sensitivity and specificity. KEY POINTS: Myometrial invasion is the most important morphological prognostic feature of endometrial cancer. MR diagnostic accuracy in presurgical detection of deep myometrial infiltration is high. MR examination including T2 and DCE imaging is considered the reference standard. DW imaging has been increasingly employed with heterogeneous results. This meta-analysis shows that DCE and DW do not differ in diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW) MR imaging in detecting deep myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer, using surgical-pathological staging as reference standard. METHODS: After searching a wide range of electronic databases and screening titles/abstracts, we obtained full papers for potentially eligible studies and evaluated according to predefined inclusion criteria. Quality assessment was conducted by adapting the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. From each study, we extracted information on diagnostic performance of DW and DCE sequences. After exploring heterogeneity, we adopted a bivariate generalized linear mixed model to compare the effect of the two MR sequences jointly on sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Nine studies (442 patients) were considered. Significant evidence of heterogeneity was found only for specificity, both in DW and DCE imaging (I (2) = 70.8 % and 70.6 %). Pooled sensitivity of DW and DCE was 0.86 and specificity did not significantly differ (p = 0.16) between the two sequences (DW = 0.86 and DCE = 0.82). No difference was found between 3-T and 1.5-T MR. There was no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: MR diagnostic accuracy in presurgical detection of deep myometrial infiltration in endometrial cancer is high. DCE and DW imaging do not differ in sensitivity and specificity. KEY POINTS: Myometrial invasion is the most important morphological prognostic feature of endometrial cancer. MR diagnostic accuracy in presurgical detection of deep myometrial infiltration is high. MR examination including T2 and DCE imaging is considered the reference standard. DW imaging has been increasingly employed with heterogeneous results. This meta-analysis shows that DCE and DW do not differ in diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Peter Beddy; Ailbhe C O'Neill; Adam K Yamamoto; Helen C Addley; Caroline Reinhold; Evis Sala Journal: Radiographics Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: A Stiekema; Car Lok; C M Korse; W J van Driel; V van der Noort; G G Kenter; K K Van de Vijver Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Stephanie Nougaret; Caroline Reinhold; Shaza S Alsharif; Helen Addley; Jocelyne Arceneau; Nicolas Molinari; Boris Guiu; Evis Sala Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nicole Concin; Carien L Creutzberg; Ignace Vergote; David Cibula; Mansoor Raza Mirza; Simone Marnitz; Jonathan A Ledermann; Tjalling Bosse; Cyrus Chargari; Anna Fagotti; Christina Fotopoulou; Antonio González-Martín; Sigurd F Lax; Domenica Lorusso; Christian Marth; Philippe Morice; Remi A Nout; Dearbhaile E O'Donnell; Denis Querleu; Maria Rosaria Raspollini; Jalid Sehouli; Alina E Sturdza; Alexandra Taylor; Anneke M Westermann; Pauline Wimberger; Nicoletta Colombo; François Planchamp; Xavier Matias-Guiu Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.064