Staging MRI of uterine malignant mixed Müllerian tumors versus endometrial carcinomas with emphasis on dynamic enhancement characteristics
- 14 Downloads
To determine whether staging pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can distinguish malignant mixed Müllerian tumor (MMMT) from EC.
Thirty-seven treatment-naïve patients with histologically proven uterine MMMT and 42 treatment-naïve patients with EC, treated at our institution, were included in our retrospective study. Staging pelvic MRI scans were reviewed for tumor size, prolapse through cervical os, and other features. Time-intensity curves for tumor and surrounding myometrium regions of interest were generated, and positive enhancement integral (PEI), maximum slope of increase (MSI), and signal enhancement ratio (SER) were measured. The Fisher's exact test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare characteristics between disease groups. Multivariate and univariate logistic regression models were used to distinguish MMMT from EC. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate prediction ability.
MMMTs were larger than ECs with higher rate of tumor prolapse and more heterogeneous tumor enhancement compared to ECs. During the late phase of contrast enhancement, 100% of ECs, but only 84% of MMMTs, had lower signal intensity than the myometrium. Threshold PEI ratio ≥ 0.67 predict MMMT with 76% sensitivity, 84%, specificity and 0.83 AUC. Threshold SER ≤ 125 predict MMMT with 90% sensitivity, 50% specificity, and 0.72 AUC.
MMMTs may show more frequent tumor prolapse, more heterogeneous enhancement, delayed iso- or hyper-enhancement, higher PEI ratios, and lower tumor SERs compared with EC. MRI can be used as a biomarker to distinguish MMMT from EC based on the enhancement pattern.
KeywordsMalignant mixed Müllerian tumor Uterine carcinosarcoma Magnetic resonance imaging Dynamic MRI Uterus
- 1.Pradhan D, Dabbs D, Bhargava R, Onisko A, Stram M, Jones M Clinical and immunohistochemical study of uterine carcinosarcoma in a large academic women's center. In, Cary, 2016. Oxford Univ Press Inc, p S136.Google Scholar
- 9.Costa MJ, Tidd C, Willis D (1992) Cervicovaginal cytology in carcinosarcoma [malignant mixed mullerian (mesodermal) tumor] of the uterus. Diagn Cytopathol 8 (1):33-40Google Scholar
- 10.. Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Cho KR, Chon HS, Chu C, Cohn D, Crispens MA, Damast S, Dorigo O, Eifel PJ, Fisher CM, Frederick P, Gaffney DK, George S, Han E, Higgins S, Huh WK, Lurain JR, 3rd, Mariani A, Mutch D, Nagel C, Nekhlyudov L, Fader AN, Remmenga SW, Reynolds RK, Tillmanns T, Ueda S, Wyse E, Yashar CM, McMillian NR, Scavone JL (2018) Uterine Neoplasms, Version 1.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16 (2):170-199. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.0006 Google Scholar
- 12.Emoto M, Charnock-Jones DS, Licence DR, Ishiguro M, Kawai M, Yanaihara A, Saito T, Hachisuga T, Iwasaki H, Kawarabayashi T, Smith SK (2004) Localization of the VEGF and angiopoietin genes in uterine carcinosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 95 (3):474-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.08.042 Google Scholar
- 21.Ohguri T, Aoki T, Watanabe H, Nakamura K, Nakata H, Matsuura Y, Kashimura M (2002) MRI findings including gadolinium-enhanced dynamic studies of malignant, mixed mesodermal tumors of the uterus: differentiation from endometrial carcinomas. Eur Radiol 12 (11):2737-2742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1405-3 Google Scholar
- 22.Kato H, Kanematsu M, Furui T, Imai A, Hirose Y, Kondo H, Goshima S, Tsuge Y (2008) Carcinosarcoma of the uterus: radiologic–pathologic correlations with magnetic resonance imaging including diffusion-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 26 (10):1446-1450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2008.04.003 Google Scholar
- 27.Umesaki N, Tanaka T, Miyama M, Ogita S, Ochi H (2000) Combined diagnostic imaging of uterine carcinosarcoma: A case report. Int J Gynecol Cancer 10 (5):425-428. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1438.2000.010005425.x Google Scholar
- 30.Bogani G, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, Ghezzi F, Rossetti D, Frigerio L, Mariani A (2016) Management of endometrial cancer: issues and controversies. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 37 (1):6-12Google Scholar
- 36.Ippolito D, Cadonici A, Bonaffini PA, Minutolo O, Casiraghi A, Perego P, Sironi S (2014) Semiquantitative perfusion combined with diffusion-weighted MR imaging in pre-operative evaluation of endometrial carcinoma: results in a group of 57 patients. Magn Reson Imaging 32 (5):464-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2014.01.009 Google Scholar
- 40.Thomassin-Naggara I, Toussaint I, Perrot N, Rouzier R, Cuenod CA, Bazot M, Darai E (2011) Characterization of complex adnexal masses: value of adding perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MR imaging to conventional MR imaging. Radiology 258 (3):793-803. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100751 Google Scholar
- 43.Bernardin L, Dilks P, Liyanage S, Miquel ME, Sahdev A, Rockall A (2012) Effectiveness of semi-quantitative multiphase dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI as a predictor of malignancy in complex adnexal masses: radiological and pathological correlation. Eur Radiol 22 (4):880-890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2331-z Google Scholar
- 44.Abe H, Mori N, Tsuchiya K, Schacht DV, Pineda FD, Jiang Y, Karczmar GS (2016) Kinetic analysis of benign and malignant breast lesions with ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison with standard kinetic assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207 (5):1159-1166. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15957 Google Scholar
- 46.Mori N, Tsuchiya K, Sheth D, Mugikura S, Takase K, Katscher U, Abe H (2018) Diagnostic value of electric properties tomography (EPT) for differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions: comparison with standard dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5708-4
- 47.Nakata N, Ohta T, Nishioka M, Takeyama H, Toriumi Y, Kato K, Nogi H, Kamio M, Fukuda K (2015) Optimization of Region of Interest Drawing for Quantitative Analysis: Differentiation Between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions on Contrast-Enhanced Sonography. J Ultrasound Med 34 (11):1969-1976. https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.14.10042 Google Scholar
- 48.Mayr NA, Wang JZ, Zhang D, Grecula JC, Lo SS, Jaroura D, Montebello J, Zhang H, Li K, Lu L, Huang Z, Fowler JM, Wu DH, Knopp MV, Yuh WT (2010) Longitudinal changes in tumor perfusion pattern during the radiation therapy course and its clinical impact in cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77 (2):502-508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.084 Google Scholar
- 49.Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Jajoura D, Wang JZ, Lo SS, Montebello JF, Porter K, Zhang D, McMeekin DS, Buatti JM (2010) Ultra-early predictive assay for treatment failure using functional magnetic resonance imaging and clinical prognostic parameters in cervical cancer. Cancer 116 (4):903-912. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24822 Google Scholar
- 50.Zahra MA, Tan LT, Priest AN, Graves MJ, Arends M, Crawford RA, Brenton JD, Lomas DJ, Sala E (2009) Semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging measurements predict radiation response in cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74 (3):766-773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.023 Google Scholar
- 51.Liu HL, Zong M, Wei H, Lou JJ, Wang SQ, Zou QG, Shi HB, Jiang YN (2017) Preoperative predicting malignancy in breast mass-like lesions: value of adding histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps to dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for improving confidence level. Br J Radiol 90 (1079):20170394. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170394 Google Scholar