Advertisement

Staging MRI of uterine malignant mixed Müllerian tumors versus endometrial carcinomas with emphasis on dynamic enhancement characteristics

  • Alheli Garza
  • Sherif B. ElsherifEmail author
  • Silvana C. Faria
  • Tara Sagebiel
  • Jia Sun
  • Jingfei Ma
  • Priya R. Bhosale
Pelvis
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To determine whether staging pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can distinguish malignant mixed Müllerian tumor (MMMT) from EC.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Malignant mixed Müllerian tumor Uterine carcinosarcoma Magnetic resonance imaging Dynamic MRI Uterus 

Notes

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Cantrell LA, Blank SV, Duska LR (2015) Uterine carcinosarcoma: A review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 137 (3):581-588..  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.03.041 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Madison T, Schottenfeld D, James SA, Schwartz AG, Gruber SB (2004) Endometrial cancer: Socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic differences in stage at diagnosis, treatment, and survival. Am J Public Health 94 (12):2104-2111.  https://doi.org/10.2105/Ajph.94.12.2104 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanthan R, Senger JL (2011) Uterine carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed mullerian tumours): a review with special emphasis on the controversies in management. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011:470795.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/470795 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks SE, Zhan M, Cote T, Baquet CR (2004) Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results analysis of 2677 cases of uterine sarcoma 1989-1999. Gynecol Oncol 93 (1):204-208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.12.029 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sherman ME, Devesa SS (2003) Analysis of racial differences in incidence, survival, and mortality for malignant tumors of the uterine corpus. Cancer 98 (1):176-186.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11484 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erickson BK, Doo DW, Zhang B, Huh WK, Leath CA, 3rd (2014) Black race independently predicts worse survival in uterine carcinosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 133 (2):238-241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.041 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M (2016) Carcinosarcoma of the uterus: MRI findings including diffusion-weighted imaging and MR spectroscopy. Acta Radiol 57 (10):1277-1284.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115626475 Google Scholar
  9. 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. 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
  11. 11.
    Genever AV, Abdi S (2011) Can MRI predict the diagnosis of endometrial carcinosarcoma? Clin Radiol 66 (7):621-624.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2011.02.008 Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Vorgias G, Fotiou S (2010) The role of lymphadenectomy in uterine carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed mullerian tumours): a critical literature review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 282 (6):659-664.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1649-0 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nemani D, Mitra N, Guo M, Lin L (2008) Assessing the effects of lymphadenectomy and radiation therapy in patients with uterine carcinosarcoma: a SEER analysis. Gynecol Oncol 111 (1):82-88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.05.016 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Galaal K, Kew FM, Tam KF, Lopes A, Meirovitz M, Naik R, Godfrey KA, Hatem MH, Edmondson RJ (2009) Evaluation of prognostic factors and treatment outcomes in uterine carcinosarcoma. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 143 (2):88-92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.12.014 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Major FJ, Blessing JA, Silverberg SG, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, Currie JL, Yordan E, Brady MF (1993) Prognostic factors in early-stage uterine sarcoma. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 71 (4 Suppl):1702-1709.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.2820710440 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Todo Y, Kato H, Kaneuchi M, Watari H, Takeda M, Sakuragi N (2010) Survival effect of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet 375 (9721):1165-1172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62002-X Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Santos P, Cunha TM (2015) Uterine sarcomas: clinical presentation and MRI features. Diagn Interv Radiol 21 (1):4-9.  https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2014.14053 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bonatti M, Pedrinolla B, Cybulski AJ, Lombardo F, Negri G, Messini S, Tagliaferri T, Manfredi R, Bonatti G (2018) Prediction of histological grade of endometrial cancer by means of MRI. Eur J Radiol 103:44-50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.04.008 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bharwani N, Newland A, Tunariu N, Babar S, Sahdev A, Rockall AG, Reznek RH (2010) MRI appearances of uterine malignant mixed mullerian tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195 (5):1268-1275.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4419 Google Scholar
  21. 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. 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
  23. 23.
    Shapeero LG, Hricak H (1989) Mixed mullerian sarcoma of the uterus: MR imaging findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 153 (2):317-319.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.153.2.317 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Teo SY, Babagbemi KT, Peters HE, Mortele KJ (2008) Primary malignant mixed mullerian tumor of the uterus: findings on sonography, CT, and gadolinium-enhanced MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191 (1):278-283.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3281 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Takemori M, Nishimura R, Yasuda D, Sugimura K (1997) Carcinosarcoma of the uterus: magnetic resonance imaging. Gynecol Obstet Invest 43 (2):139-141.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000291840 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tanaka YO, Tsunoda H, Minami R, Yoshikawa H, Minami M (2008) Carcinosarcoma of the uterus: MR findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 28 (2):434-439.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21469 Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 28.
    Li HM, Feng F, Qiang JW, Zhang GF, Zhao SH, Ma FH, Li YA, Gu WY (2018) Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating benign, borderline, and malignant ovarian tumors. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43 (11):3132-3141.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1569-1 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Youssef MA, Elahwal HMS, Alwageeh MM, Attya SE (2018) Role of MRI in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI and diffusion weighted MRI. Alexandria Journal of Medicine 54 (1):1-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajme.2016.12.008 Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 31.
    Latif NA, Haggerty A, Jean S, Lin L, Ko E (2014) Adjuvant therapy in early-stage endometrial cancer: a systematic review of the evidence, guidelines, and clinical practice in the U.S. Oncologist 19 (6):645-653.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0475 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    He H, Bhosale P, Wei W, Ramalingam P, Iyer R (2013) MRI is highly specific in determining primary cervical versus endometrial cancer when biopsy results are inconclusive. Clin Radiol 68 (11):1107-1113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.05.095 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sala E, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, Mitchell DG, Reinhold C (2013) The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patients with gynecologic malignancies: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiology 266 (3):717-740.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120315 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D (2007) MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188 (6):1577-1587.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.1196 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hameeduddin A, Sahdev A (2015) Diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in assessing response and recurrent disease in gynaecological malignancies. Cancer Imaging 15 (1):3.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-015-0037-1 Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 37.
    Fukunaga T, Fujii S, Inoue C, Kato A, Chikumi J, Kaminou T, Ogawa T (2015) Accuracy of semiquantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for differentiating type II from type I endometrial carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 41 (6):1662-1668.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24730 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Bazot M, Darai E, Callard P, Thomassin J, Cuenod CA (2008) Epithelial ovarian tumors: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 248 (1):148-159.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481071120 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yuan SJ, Qiao TK, Qiang JW, Cai SQ, Li RK (2017) The value of DCE-MRI in assessing histopathological and molecular biological features in induced rat epithelial ovarian carcinomas. J Ovarian Res 10 (1):65.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-017-0362-z Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 41.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Balvay D, Aubert E, Darai E, Rouzier R, Cuenod CA, Bazot M (2012) Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging analysis of complex adnexal masses: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 22 (4):738-745.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2329-6 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dilks P, Narayanan P, Reznek R, Sahdev A, Rockall A (2010) Can quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI independently characterize an ovarian mass? Eur Radiol 20 (9):2176-2183.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1795-6 Google Scholar
  43. 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. 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
  45. 45.
    Mann RM, Mus RD, van Zelst J, Geppert C, Karssemeijer N, Platel B (2014) A novel approach to contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging for screening: high-resolution ultrafast dynamic imaging. Invest Radiol 49 (9):579-585.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000057 Google Scholar
  46. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  52. 52.
    Chen J, Si Y, Zhao K, Shi X, Bi W, Liu SE, Hua H (2018) Evaluation of quantitative parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in qualitative diagnosis of hepatic masses. BMC Med Imaging 18 (1):56.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-018-0299-8 Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Aubert E, Rockall A, Jalaguier-Coudray A, Rouzier R, Darai E, Bazot M (2013) Adnexal masses: development and preliminary validation of an MR imaging scoring system. Radiology 267 (2):432-443.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121161 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiology Associates of North TexasDallasUSA
  2. 2.The Department of Diagnostic RadiologyThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.The Department of BiostatisticsThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  4. 4.The Department of Imaging PhysicsThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations