European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 4725–4734 | Cite as

Pre-operative MRI staging of endometrial cancer in a multicentre cancer network: can we match single centre study results?

  • N. D. SonejiEmail author
  • N. Bharwani
  • A. Ferri
  • V. Stewart
  • A. Rockall



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.

Key Points

• 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


Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Cancer staging Endometrial cancer Data accuracy Tertiary referral centre 



Dynamic contrast enhancement


Diffusion weighted imaging


Endometrial carcinoma


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.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.


• retrospective

• cross-sectional

• multicentre study

Supplementary material

330_2018_5465_MOESM1_ESM.docx (96 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 95 kb)


  1. 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:
  2. 2.
    Cancer Research UK (2017) Cancer statistics. Available via: Accessed September 2017
  3. 3.
    Amant F, Mirza MR, Creutzberg CL (2012) Cancer of the corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 119:S110–S117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F et al (2016) ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26:2–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patel S, Liyanage SH, Sahdev A, Rockall AG, Reznek RH (2010) Imaging of endometrial and cervical cancer. Insights Imaging 1:309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beddy P, Moyle P, Kataoka M et al (2012) Evaluation of depth of myometrial invasion and overall staging in endometrial cancer: comparison of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 262:530–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 266:717–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    AlHilli MM, Mariani A (2013) The role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 18:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan S, van Vugt S, Sanday K et al (2010) Evaluation of tumor-free distance and depth of myometrial invasion as prognostic factors for lymph node metastases in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20:1217–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D (2007) MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1577–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spencer JA, Messiou C, Swift SE (2008) MR staging of endometrial cancer: needed or wanted? Cancer Imaging 8:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G et al (2004) Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology 231:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rockall A, Sohaib A, Sala E (2014) Recommendation for cross-sectional imaging in cancer management, 2nd edn. Endoemtrial Cancer. The Royal College of Radiologists, London Available at: Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Lalwani N, Dubinsky T, Javitt MC et al (2014) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® pretreatment evaluation and follow-up of endometrial cancer. Ultrasound Q 30:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bonatti M, Stuefer J, Oberhofer N et al (2015) MRI for local staging of endometrial carcinoma: is endovenous contrast medium administration still needed? Eur J Radiol 84:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Das SK, Niu XK, Wang JL et al (2014) Usefulness of DWI in preoperative assessment of deep myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Imaging 14:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andreano A, Rechichi G, Rebora P, Sironi S, Valsecchi MG, Galimberti S (2014) MR diffusion imaging for preoperative staging of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 24:1327–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duncan KA, Drinkwater KJ, Frost C, Remedios D, Barter S (2012) Staging cancer of the uterus: a national audit of MRI accuracy. Clin Radiol 67:523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luomaranta A, Leminen A, Loukovaara M (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of high-risk features of endometrial carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 25:837–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rockall AG, Meroni R, Sohaib SA et al (2007) Evaluation of endometrial carcinoma on magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Gynecol Cancer 17:188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kinkel K, Forstner R, Danza FM et al (2009) Staging of endometrial cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Imaging. Eur Radiol 19:1565–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bazot M, Bharwani N, Huchon C et al (2017) European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol 27:2765–2775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T et al (2011) Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol 21:11002–11110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hammersmith Hospital Imaging DepartmentImperial College NHS Healthcare TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.Imaging DepartmentThe Royal Marsden HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.Ospedale San RoccoCasertaItaly

Personalised recommendations