Kristine E Fasmer1,2, Ankush Gulati3,4, Julie A Dybvik3,4, Kari S Wagner-Larsen3,4, Njål Lura3,4, Øyvind Salvesen5, David Forsse6,7, Jone Trovik6,7, Johanna M A Pijnenborg8, Camilla Krakstad6,7, Ingfrid S Haldorsen9,10. 1. Mohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. kristine.fasmer@helse-bergen.no. 2. Section for Radiology, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. kristine.fasmer@helse-bergen.no. 3. Mohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 4. Section for Radiology, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 5. Unit for applied Clinical Research, Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 7. Centre for Cancer Biomarkers, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 9. Mohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. ingfrid.haldorsen@helse-bergen.no. 10. Section for Radiology, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. ingfrid.haldorsen@helse-bergen.no.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study presents the diagnostic performance of four different preoperative imaging workups (IWs) for prediction of lymph node metastases (LNMs) in endometrial cancer (EC): pelvic MRI alone (IW1), MRI and [18F]FDG-PET/CT in all patients (IW2), MRI with selective [18F]FDG-PET/CT if high-risk preoperative histology (IW3), and MRI with selective [18F]FDG-PET/CT if MRI indicates FIGO stage ≥ 1B (IW4). METHODS: In 361 EC patients, preoperative staging parameters from both pelvic MRI and [18F]FDG-PET/CT were recorded. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC AUC) compared the diagnostic performance for the different imaging parameters and workups for predicting surgicopathological FIGO stage. Survival data were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimator with log-rank test. RESULTS: MRI and [18F]FDG-PET/CT staging parameters yielded similar AUCs for predicting corresponding FIGO staging parameters in low-risk versus high-risk histology groups (p ≥ 0.16). The sensitivities, specificities, and AUCs for LNM prediction were as follows: IW1-33% [9/27], 95% [185/193], and 0.64; IW2-56% [15/27], 90% [174/193], and 0.73 (p = 0.04 vs. IW1); IW3-44% [12/27], 94% [181/193], and 0.69 (p = 0.13 vs. IW1); and IW4-52% [14/27], 91% [176/193], and 0.72 (p = 0.06 vs. IW1). IW3 and IW4 selected 34% [121/361] and 54% [194/361] to [18F]FDG-PET/CT, respectively. Employing IW4 identified three distinct patient risk groups that exhibited increasing FIGO stage (p < 0.001) and stepwise reductions in survival (p ≤ 0.002). CONCLUSION: Selective [18F]FDG-PET/CT in patients with high-risk MRI findings yields better detection of LNM than MRI alone, and similar diagnostic performance to that of MRI and [18F]FDG-PET/CT in all. KEY POINTS: • Imaging by MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT yields similar diagnostic performance in low- and high-risk histology groups for predicting central FIGO staging parameters. • Utilizing a stepwise imaging workup with MRI in all patients and [18F]FDG-PET/CT in selected patients based on MRI findings identifies preoperative risk groups exhibiting significantly different survival. • The proposed imaging workup selecting ~54% of the patients to [18F]FDG-PET/CT yield better detection of LNMs than MRI alone, and similar LNM detection to that of MRI and [18F]FDG-PET/CT in all.
OBJECTIVE: This study presents the diagnostic performance of four different preoperative imaging workups (IWs) for prediction of lymph node metastases (LNMs) in endometrial cancer (EC): pelvic MRI alone (IW1), MRI and [18F]FDG-PET/CT in all patients (IW2), MRI with selective [18F]FDG-PET/CT if high-risk preoperative histology (IW3), and MRI with selective [18F]FDG-PET/CT if MRI indicates FIGO stage ≥ 1B (IW4). METHODS: In 361 EC patients, preoperative staging parameters from both pelvic MRI and [18F]FDG-PET/CT were recorded. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC AUC) compared the diagnostic performance for the different imaging parameters and workups for predicting surgicopathological FIGO stage. Survival data were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimator with log-rank test. RESULTS: MRI and [18F]FDG-PET/CT staging parameters yielded similar AUCs for predicting corresponding FIGO staging parameters in low-risk versus high-risk histology groups (p ≥ 0.16). The sensitivities, specificities, and AUCs for LNM prediction were as follows: IW1-33% [9/27], 95% [185/193], and 0.64; IW2-56% [15/27], 90% [174/193], and 0.73 (p = 0.04 vs. IW1); IW3-44% [12/27], 94% [181/193], and 0.69 (p = 0.13 vs. IW1); and IW4-52% [14/27], 91% [176/193], and 0.72 (p = 0.06 vs. IW1). IW3 and IW4 selected 34% [121/361] and 54% [194/361] to [18F]FDG-PET/CT, respectively. Employing IW4 identified three distinct patient risk groups that exhibited increasing FIGO stage (p < 0.001) and stepwise reductions in survival (p ≤ 0.002). CONCLUSION: Selective [18F]FDG-PET/CT in patients with high-risk MRI findings yields better detection of LNM than MRI alone, and similar diagnostic performance to that of MRI and [18F]FDG-PET/CT in all. KEY POINTS: • Imaging by MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT yields similar diagnostic performance in low- and high-risk histology groups for predicting central FIGO staging parameters. • Utilizing a stepwise imaging workup with MRI in all patients and [18F]FDG-PET/CT in selected patients based on MRI findings identifies preoperative risk groups exhibiting significantly different survival. • The proposed imaging workup selecting ~54% of the patients to [18F]FDG-PET/CT yield better detection of LNMs than MRI alone, and similar LNM detection to that of MRI and [18F]FDG-PET/CT in all.
Authors: K Kinkel; R Forstner; F M Danza; L Oleaga; T M Cunha; A Bergman; J O Barentsz; C Balleyguier; B Brkljacic; J A Spencer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-02-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nicole C M Visser; Casper Reijnen; Leon F A G Massuger; Iris D Nagtegaal; Johan Bulten; Johanna M A Pijnenborg Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jone Trovik; Elisabeth Wik; Henrica M J Werner; Camilla Krakstad; Harald Helland; Ingrid Vandenput; Tormund S Njolstad; Ingunn M Stefansson; Janusz Marcickiewicz; Solveig Tingulstad; Anne C Staff; Frederic Amant; Lars A Akslen; Helga B Salvesen Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Nicole Concin; Xavier Matias-Guiu; Ignace Vergote; David Cibula; Mansoor Raza Mirza; Simone Marnitz; Jonathan Ledermann; Tjalling Bosse; Cyrus Chargari; Anna Fagotti; Christina Fotopoulou; Antonio Gonzalez Martin; Sigurd Lax; Domenica Lorusso; Christian Marth; Philippe Morice; Remi A Nout; Dearbhaile O'Donnell; Denis Querleu; Maria Rosaria Raspollini; Jalid Sehouli; Alina Sturdza; Alexandra Taylor; Anneke Westermann; Pauline Wimberger; Nicoletta Colombo; François Planchamp; Carien L Creutzberg Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: L Helpman; R Kupets; A Covens; R S Saad; M A Khalifa; N Ismiil; Z Ghorab; V Dubé; S Nofech-Mozes Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 7.640