| Literature DB >> 27900204 |
Susanne Fridsten1, Ann-Cathrin Hellström2, Kristina Hellman2, Anders Sundin2, Boel Söderén2, Lennart Blomqvist2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the choice of treatment in patients with cervical carcinoma depends on cancer stage at diagnosis, accurate staging is essential.Entities:
Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); cervix uteri; conization; neoplasm staging; observer variation
Year: 2016 PMID: 27900204 PMCID: PMC5122173 DOI: 10.1177/2058460116679460
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Radiol Open
Fig. 1.Flow chart resulting in the final study group comprising 57 patients (hysterectomy n = 51, trachelectomy n = 6). The gray boxes represent the excluded patients and reasons for exclusion. RT, radiotherapy.
MR pulse sequence parameters.
| Weighting | T1 | T1 | T1 | T2 | T2 | T2 | T2 | T2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plane | Axial pelvis | Axial upper | Axial upper | Axial pelvis | Sagittal | Axial oblique | Coronal oblique | Axial upper |
| Field strength (T) | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Coil | Syn-body | Q-body | Q-body | Syn-body | Syn-body | Syn-body | Syn-body | Q-body |
| Pulse sequence | GR | GR(fatsat) | GR | TSE | TSE | TSE | TSE | GR |
| Repetition time (ms) | 9.3 | 181 | 186-200 | 4040-4056 | 3124-42 | 3000 | 3000 | 1800-2000 |
| Echo time (ms) | 4.6 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 130 | 130 | 86 | 86 | 100 |
| Signals acquired (n) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Section thickness (mm) | 2 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 8 |
| Section gap (mm) | 1 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 10 |
| Matrix | 256 × 188 | 192 × 144 | 192 × 144 | 512 × 407 | 512 × 350 | 256 × 248 | 256 × 248 | 256 × 188 |
| Field of view (mm) | 240 | 384.9 | 350–380 | 240 | 264.9–265 | 160 | 160 | 380 |
Fig. 2.MR protocol A: T2W sagittal (a) and axial (b) images of the pelvis, T1W axial images of pelvis (c) and axial T2W images of the upper abdomen (d) and T1W images of the upper abdomen (e). A cervical tumor bulging into the left fornix is marked with “X.”
Fig. 3.MR protocol B: T2W axial oblique images perpendicular to the cervical canal (a) and coronal oblique images parallel to the cervical canal (b). A cervical tumor bulging into the left fornix is marked with “X.”
Fig. 4.MR protocol C: T1W contrast-enhanced axial images of the pelvis (a) and the upper abdomen (b). A cervical tumor bulging into the left fornix is marked with “X.”
Staging by histopathology, clinical examination, and MRI according to the three pulse sequence combinations A, A+B, and A+B + C.
| Histopathology | Clinical staging | MRI A | MRI A+B | MRI A+B+C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0N0M0 | 39 | 39 | 38 | ||
| T1a1N0M0 | 3 | 1 | |||
| T1a2N0M0 | 8 | 5 | |||
| T1b1N0M0 | 36 | 50 | 13 | 11 | 12 |
| T1b1N1M0 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| T1b1N0M1 | 1 | ||||
| T1b2N0M0 | 1 | ||||
| T2aN0M0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| T2aN1M0 | 1 | ||||
| T2bN0M0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | ||
| T2bN1M0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Lymph node staging: MRI versus surgical/histopathological findings.
| Lymph node metastases | ||
|---|---|---|
| Histopathology | ||
| MRI in consensus | N1 | N0 |
| N1 | 2 | 1 |
| N0 | 4 | 50 |
| Sensitivity 33% | ||
| Specificity 98% | ||
Tumor detection by MRI in non-conizised versus conizised patients.
| No conization | Post conization | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor in surgical specimen | Tumor in final surgical specimen | |||
| Tumor at MRI | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Yes | 9 | 0 | 8 | 1 |
| No | 12 | 4 | 6 | 17 |
| Sensitivity 43% | Sensitivity 57% | |||
| Specificity 100% | Specificity 94% | |||