Advertisement

A Prospective Observational Study Evaluating the Accuracy of MRI in Predicting the Extent of Disease in Endometrial Cancer

  • Gaurav Goel
  • Anupama RajanbabuEmail author
  • C. J. Sandhya
  • Indu R. Nair
Original Article
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

This prospective study looks into the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting the depth of MI, cervical invasion, lymph node metastasis, and extrauterine spread (EUS) of disease in endometrial cancer. Between June 2014 and December 2015, 58 patients with biopsy-proven endometrial cancer who underwent MRI prior to surgery were included in the study. MRI findings like myometrial invasion, extrauterine spread, lymph nodal metastasis, and cervical invasion were compared against the histopathology report. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy of MRI for myometrial depth assessment were 75.0%, 73.08%, 77.2%, 70.37%, and 74.14 respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy of MRI in assessing lymph node spread were 88.64%, 66.67%, 95.12%, 44.44%, and 86.0% respectively. As for predicting extrauterine spread and cervical invasion, MRI showed poor sensitivity (37.5% and 50% respectively) and a high specificity (92% and 100% respectively). Our study shows that preoperative MRI has high sensitivity and specificity to predict myometrial invasion and lymph node involvement. But, it is not sensitive enough to predict cervical involvement or extrauterine spread.

Keywords

Endometrial carcinoma MRI Myometrial invasion Pathology 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Anupama R, Venkatesan R, Thomas SB, Dinesh M, Pavithran K, Vijaykumar DK (2015) Early-stage endometrial cancer: recurrence pattern and survival analysis from a tertiary cancer centre in South India. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 13:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 375:1165–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, Alberto Lissoni A, Signorelli M, Scambia G et al (2008) Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1707–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASTEC study group, Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmar MK (2009) Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet 373:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kang S, Kang WD, Chung HH et al (2012) Preoperative identification of a low risk group for lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 30:1329–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Haldorsen IS, Salvesen HB (2012) Staging of endometrial carcinomas with MRI using traditional and novel MRI techniques. Clin Radiol 67(1):2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McComiskey MH, McCluggage WG, Gray A, Harley I, Dobbs S, Nagar HA (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 22(6):102–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Chung HH, Kang SB, Cho JY et al (2007) Accuracy of MR imaging for the prediction of myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 104:654–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cabrita S, Rodrigues H, Abreu R et al (2008) Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative staging of endometrial carcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 29:135–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hori M, Kim T, Murakami T et al (2009) MR imaging of endometrial carcinoma for preoperative staging at 3.0 T: comparison with imaging at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang SJ, Lee EJ, Kim WY et al (2010) Value of sonohysterography in preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion for patients with endometrial cancer. J Ultrasound Med 29:923–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgical Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research CentreAmrita UniversityKochiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research CentreAmrita UniversityKochiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research CentreAmrita UniversityKochiIndia
  4. 4.Department of Pathology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research CentreAmrita UniversityKochiIndia

Personalised recommendations