OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare CT and MRI at 0.5 T in the preoperative staging of uterine cervical cancer in a large series of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine patients with uterine cervical carcinoma underwent CT, MRI, and surgical exploration. RESULTS: Both CT and MR findings were compared using surgical-pathologic findings as gold standards. Magnetic resonance imaging was superior to CT in tumor detection (sensitivity 75 vs. 51%, p < 0.005), in parametrial evaluation (accuracy 87 vs. 80%, p < 0.005), in overall tumor staging (accuracy 77 vs. 69%, p < 0.025), and in pelvic lymph node evaluation (accuracy 88 vs. 83%, p < 0.01). Magnetic resonance imaging had an accuracy of 76% in assessment of the thickness of cervical stromal invasion. CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance imaging was superior to CT in preoperative staging of uterine cervical carcinoma and MRI should be used instead of CT for preoperative staging of this disease.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare CT and MRI at 0.5 T in the preoperative staging of uterine cervical cancer in a large series of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine patients with uterine cervical carcinoma underwent CT, MRI, and surgical exploration. RESULTS: Both CT and MR findings were compared using surgical-pathologic findings as gold standards. Magnetic resonance imaging was superior to CT in tumor detection (sensitivity 75 vs. 51%, p < 0.005), in parametrial evaluation (accuracy 87 vs. 80%, p < 0.005), in overall tumor staging (accuracy 77 vs. 69%, p < 0.025), and in pelvic lymph node evaluation (accuracy 88 vs. 83%, p < 0.01). Magnetic resonance imaging had an accuracy of 76% in assessment of the thickness of cervical stromal invasion. CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance imaging was superior to CT in preoperative staging of uterine cervical carcinoma and MRI should be used instead of CT for preoperative staging of this disease.
Authors: P R Bhosale; R B Iyer; P Ramalingam; K M Schmeler; W Wei; R L Bassett; P T Ramirez; M Frumovitz Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Maarten G Thomeer; Cees Gerestein; Sandra Spronk; Helena C van Doorn; Els van der Ham; Myriam G Hunink Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 5.315