Pre-operative MRI staging of endometrial cancer in a multicentre cancer network: can we match single centre study results?
To evaluate the staging accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for endometrial cancer in daily practice over a 3-year period at a tertiary referral centre receiving scans from a large number of hospitals with varying protocols. To compare these daily practice results to published data from single-centre studies.
After ethical approval, MRI staging records for 270 studies from nine network and three centre hospitals were retrospectively collected and compared with final operative histopathology. The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, depth of invasion assessment and cervical stromal invasion were analysed and reasons for discrepancies reviewed.
MRI-based complete FIGO stage was fully concordant with histopathology in 65.6%. MRI accuracy for depth of myometrial invasion and cervical stromal invasion was 73.3% and 89.3% respectively. Our results did not match the high accuracy previously reported in studies based on single centres.
Published MRI staging accuracy from small single-centre studies were not replicated in a tertiary referral centre receiving scans with heterogeneous protocols over a 3-year period. These results highlight the challenges faced in daily practice and may reflect achievable and realistic MRI staging accuracies in large rapid throughput referral networks. Adherence to standardised high-quality protocols may help to improve future results.
• Three-year MRI-staging accuracy for endometrial cancer in a multicentre cancer network
• Daily practice MRI-staging accuracy did not meet results of single-centre studies
• Large scale cancer network MRI-staging accuracies should be further evaluated
• Treatment recommendations should be based on achievable MRI-staging accuracies
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Cancer staging Endometrial cancer Data accuracy Tertiary referral centre
Dynamic contrast enhancement
Diffusion weighted imaging
International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
Multi-disciplinary team meeting
Magnetic resonance imaging
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof Andrea Rockall.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.
Institutional review board approval was obtained.
• multicentre study
- 1.U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group DoHaHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute (2016) United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2013 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute, Atlanta, USA. Available via: www.cdc.gov/uscs
- 2.Cancer Research UK (2017) Cancer statistics. Available via: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancerstatistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/uterine-cancer#heading-Zero. Accessed September 2017
- 14.Querleu D, Planchamp F, Narducci F et al (2011) Clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial cancer in France: recommendations of the Institut National du Cancer and the Société Française d'Oncologie Gynécologique. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:945–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar