Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predictive value of T2-weighted imaging and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in assessing myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: a pooled analysis of prospective studies

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To obtain diagnostic performance values of T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) in the prediction of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer.

Methods

Databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for relevant original articles published from January1995 to March 2012. Pooled estimation data were obtained by statistical analysis.

Results

Eleven articles (548 patients) were included. For assessing any myometrial involvement, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for CE-MRI were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72, 0.88), 0.72 (95% CI, 0.64, 0.79), 0.65 (95% CI, 0.56, 0.73) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78, 0.91); for T2WI, they were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78, 0.94), 0.58 (95% CI, 0.47, 0.69), 0.64 (95% CI, 0.54, 0.73), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.73, 0.92) respectively. The pooled specificity of CE-MRI (0.72) was significantly higher than T2WI (0.58) (P < 0.05). For assessing deep myometrial involvement, there was no statistically significant difference between CE-MRI and T2WI, (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

CE-MRI has a good diagnostic performance in the prediction of any myometrial invasion and is superior to T2WI. But its PPV is somewhat suboptimal. For assessing deep myometrial involvement, its NPV appears relative high and negative findings strongly suggest an absence of deep myometrial involvement, which can guide therapeutic decision-making.

Key Points

• CE-MRI is widely used for endometrial carcinoma

• CE-MRI has a good performance in the prediction of any myometrial invasion

• CE-MRI is superior to T2WI in the prediction of any myometrial invasion

• For assessing deep myometrial involvement, its NPV appears relatively high

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Cancer Institute (2010) Cancer stat fact sheets: sorpus and uterus, NOS. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E (2010) Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60:277–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Larson DM, Connor GP, Broste SK, Krawisz BR, Johnson KK (1996) Prognostic significance of gross myometrial invasion with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 88:394–398

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Berman ML, Ballon SC, Lagasse LD, Watring WG (1980) Prognosis and treatment of endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 136:679–688

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Uterine Cancers. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Web site. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uterine.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2012

  6. Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT et al (1984) Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol 63:825–832

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F et al (2008) Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1707–1716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 373:125–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang CB, Wang CJ, Huang HJ et al (2002) Fertility-preserving treatment in young patients with endometrial adenocarcinoma. Cancer 94:2192–2198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G et al (2004) Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology 231:372–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sala E, Crawford R, Senior E et al (2009) Added value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in predicting advanced stage disease in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 19:141–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 19:1565–1574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ito K, Matsumoto T, Nakada T, Nakanishi T, Fujita N, Yamashita H (1994) Assessing myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma with dynamic MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 18:77–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nakao Y, Yokoyama M, Hara K et al (2006) MR imaging in endometrial carcinoma as a diagnostic tool for the absence of myometrial invasion. Gynecol Oncol 102:343–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Seki H, Kimura M, Sakai K (1997) Myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma: assessment with dynamic MR and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. Clin Radiol 52:18–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sironi S, Colombo E, Villa G et al (1992) Myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: assessment with plain and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 185:207–212

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yamashita Y, Harada M, Sawada T, Takahashi M, Miyazaki K, Okamura H (1993) Normal uterus and FIGO stage I endometrial carcinoma: dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 186:495–501

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rockall AG, Meroni R, Sohaib SA et al (2007) Evaluation of endometrial carcinoma on magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Gynecol Cancer 17:188–196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chung HH, Kang SB, Cho JY et al (2007) Accuracy of MR imaging for the prediction of myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 104:654–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Deville WL, Bezemer PD, Bouter LM (2000) Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. J Clin Epidemiol 53:65–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L (2005) The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:882–893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Haldorsen IS, Husby JA, Werner HM et al (2012) Standard 1.5-T MRI of endometrial carcinomas: modest agreement between radiologists. Eur Radiol 22:1601–1611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Emlik D, Kiresi D, Ozdemir S, Celik C, Karakose S (2010) Preoperative assessment of myometrial and cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma: comparison of multi-section dynamic MR imaging using a three dimensional FLASH technique and T2-weighted MR imaging. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 54:202–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 29:923–929

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rechichi G, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, Perego P, Valsecchi MG, Sironi S (2010) Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 1.5-T. Eur Radiol 20:754–762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ozdemir S, Celik C, Emlik D, Kiresi D, Esen H (2009) Assessment of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer by transvaginal sonography, Doppler ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging and frozen section. Int J Gynecol Cancer 19:1085–1090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lin G, Ng KK, Chang CJ et al (2009) Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted 3.0-T MR imaging—initial experience. Radiology 250:784–792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 30:621–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Savelli L, Ceccarini M, Ludovisi M et al (2008) Preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer: transvaginal sonography vs. magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:560–566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Savci G, Ozyaman T, Tutar M, Bilgin T, Erol O, Tuncel E (1998) Assessment of depth of myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: comparison of T2-weighted SE and contrast-enhanced dynamic GRE MR imaging. Eur Radiol 8:218–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 323:157–162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK et al (1999) Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology 212:711–718

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Frei KA, Kinkel K, Bonel HM, Lu Y, Zaloudek C, Hricak H (2000) Prediction of deep myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MR imaging-a meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology 216:444–449

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chu H, Cole SR (2006) Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1331–1332, author reply 1332–1333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the grant of National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 81171325), Shanghai Science and Technology Committee Medical guide project (grant no. 114119a0900)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127, China

    Lian-Ming Wu, Jian-Rong Xu, Hai-Yan Gu & Jia Hua

  2. Department of Radiology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA

    Lian-Ming Wu, E. Mark Haacke & Jiani Hu

Authors
  1. Lian-Ming Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jian-Rong Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hai-Yan Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jia Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Mark Haacke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jiani Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian-Rong Xu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wu, LM., Xu, JR., Gu, HY. et al. Predictive value of T2-weighted imaging and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in assessing myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: a pooled analysis of prospective studies. Eur Radiol 23, 435–449 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2609-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2609-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation