Advertisement

Diagnostic performance of MR imaging in evaluating prognostic factors in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis

  • Meiling Xiao
  • Bicong Yan
  • Ying Li
  • Jingjing Lu
  • Jinwei QiangEmail author
Urogenital

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to determine the diagnostic performance of conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessing the distance between the tumor and the internal os, stromal infiltration, lymph node metastasis, and parametrial invasion in patients with cervical cancer.

Methods

A systematic English-language literature search of conventional MRI in the evaluation of human cervical cancer was performed in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases from 1995 to 2018. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR) of all studies were calculated. The results were then plotted in a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) plot, and meta-regression and subgroup analyses of the parametrial invasion were also performed.

Results

The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, and NLR were 86%, 97%, 167.91, 24.74, and 0.15, respectively, in evaluating the internal os involvement (6 studies, 454 patients); 87%, 91%, 73.41, 10.22, and 0.14, respectively, in evaluating the stromal infiltration (11 studies, 672 patients); 51%, 89%, 8.63, 4.72, and 0.55, respectively, in evaluating the lymph node metastasis (15 studies, 997 patients); and 75%, 92%, 34.01, 9.38, and 0.28, respectively, in evaluating the parametrial invasion (19 studies, 1748 patients). The meta-regression of the parametrial invasion showed that the application of contrast enhancement was a significant factor affected the heterogeneity (p = 0.039).

Conclusions

Conventional MRI can accurately evaluate the distance between the tumor and the internal os, as well as stromal infiltration, and performs well in diagnosing the parametrial invasion. However, this method exhibited a limited ability in diagnosing the lymph node metastasis.

Key Points

• MRI can help clinicians to accurately assess the distance between the tumor and the internal os, stromal infiltration, and parametrial invasion in patients with uterine cervical neoplasms.

• MRI exhibits a limited ability in diagnosing the lymph node metastasis.

• Management of patients with uterine cervical neoplasms becomes more appropriate.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Cervical cancer Lymph node metastasis Parametrial invasion Meta-analysis 

Abbreviations

AUC

Area under the curve

CE

Contrast-enhanced

CI

Confidence interval

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

DOR

Diagnostic odds ratio

FIGO

International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics

HSROC

Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

NLR

Negative likelihood ratios

PLR

Positive likelihood ratios

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

QUADAS-2

Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2

RT

Radical trachelectomy

Notes

Funding information

This study has received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81471628) and the Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning, China (No. 2013SY075 and No. ZK2015A05).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jinwei Qiang.

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

One of the authors (Ying Li) has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study due to the nature of the study, which was a meta-analysis.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required for this study due to the nature of the study, which was a meta-analysis.

Methodology

• Meta-analysis

• Performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6461_MOESM1_ESM.docx (350 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 349 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dursun P, Gultekin M, Ayhan A (2011) The history of radical hysterectomy. J Low Genit Tract Dis 15:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, Oh CM, Shin A, Lee JS (2013) Survival of Korean adult cancer patients by stage at diagnosis, 2006-2010: national cancer registry study. Cancer Res Treat 45:162–171PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergmark K, Avall-Lundqvist E, Dickman PW, Henningsohn L, Steineck G (1999) Vaginal changes and sexuality in women with a history of cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1383–1389PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scotti RJ, Bergman A, Bhatia NN, Ostergard DR (1986) Urodynamic changes in urethrovesical function after radical hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 68:111–120PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sood AK, Nygaard I, Shahin MS, Sorosky JI, Lutgendorf SK, Rao SS (2002) Anorectal dysfunction after surgical treatment for cervical cancer. J Am Coll Surg 195:513–519PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jumelle C, Leblanc E, Ceugnart L, Taieb S (2016) MR imaging in the management of trachelectomy. Diagn Interv Imaging 97:129–132PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li J, Wu X, Li X, Ju X (2013) Abdominal radical trachelectomy: is it safe for IB1 cervical cancer with tumours >/= 2cm? Gynecol Oncol 131:87–92PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lakhman Y, Akin O, Park KJ et al (2013) Stage IB1 cervical cancer: role of preoperative MR imaging in selection of patients for fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy. Radiology 269:149–158PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sahdev A, Sohaib SA, Wenaden AE, Shepherd JH, Reznek RH (2007) The performance of magnetic resonance imaging in early cervical carcinoma: a long-term experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer 17:629–636PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim M, Suh DH, Kim K, Lee HJ, Kim YB, No JH (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging as a valuable tool for predicting parametrial invasion in stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 27:332–338PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nicolet V, Carignan L, Bourdon F, Prosmanne O (2000) MR imaging of cervical carcinoma: a practical staging approach. Radiographics 20:1539–1549PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park JJ, Kim CK, Park SY, Park BK, Kim B (2014) Value of diffusion-weighted imaging in predicting parametrial invasion in stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer. Eur Radiol 24:1081–1088PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park JJ, Kim CK, Park SY, Park BK (2015) Parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: fused T2-weighted imaging and high-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression at 3 T. Radiology 274:734–741PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging for detection of parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature between 2012 and 2016. Eur Radiol 28:530–541PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peerlings J, Troost EG, Nelemans PJ et al (2016) The diagnostic value of MR imaging in determining the lymph node status of patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology 281:86–98PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 58:882–893PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeSouza NM, Dina R, McIndoe GA, Soutter WP (2006) Cervical cancer: value of an endovaginal coil magnetic resonance imaging technique in detecting small volume disease and assessing parametrial extension. Gynecol Oncol 102:80–85PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hori M, Kim T, Murakami T et al (2009) Uterine cervical carcinoma: preoperative staging with 3.0-T MR imaging--comparison with 1.5-T MR imaging. Radiology 251:96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shweel MA, Abdel-Gawad EA, Abdel-Gawad EA, Abdelghany HS, Abdel-Rahman AM, Ibrahim EM (2012) Uterine cervical malignancy: diagnostic accuracy of MRI with histopathologic correlation. J Clin Imaging Sci 2:42PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da CT et al (2011) Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol 21:1102–1110PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luo Q, Luo L, Tang L (2018) A network meta-analysis on the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 17:1876009959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Boer P, Adam JA, Buist MR et al (2013) Role of MRI in detecting involvement of the uterine internal os in uterine cervical cancer: systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. Eur J Radiol 82:e422–e428PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shen G, Zhou H, Jia Z, Deng H (2015) Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for detection of pelvic metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 88:20150063PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plante M, Gregoire J, Renaud MC, Roy M (2011) The vaginal radical trachelectomy: an update of a series of 125 cases and 106 pregnancies. Gynecol Oncol 121:290–297PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhou M, Lu B, Lv G et al (2015) Differential diagnosis between metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes using DW-MRI: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 141:1119–1130PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL (1994) Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 271:703–707PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moloney F, Ryan D, Twomey M, Hewitt M, Barry J (2016) Comparison of MRI and high-resolution transvaginal sonography for the local staging of cervical cancer. J Clin Ultrasound 44:78–84PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ (1999) A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol 73:177–183PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, Azizi L, Stern JL (1995) Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol 86:43–50PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim SH, Choi BI, Han JK et al (1993) Preoperative staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MRI in 99 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17:633–640PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sironi S, De Cobelli F, Scarfone G et al (1993) Carcinoma of the cervix: value of plain and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging in assessing degree of invasiveness. Radiology 188:797–801PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bourgioti C, Chatoupis K, Rodolakis A et al (2016) Incremental prognostic value of MRI in the staging of early cervical cancer: a prospective study and review of the literature. Clin Imaging 40:72–78PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Signorelli M, Guerra L, Montanelli L et al (2011) Preoperative staging of cervical cancer: Is 18-FDG-PET/CT really effective in patients with early stage disease? Gynecol Oncol 123:236–240PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Magne N, Chargari C, Vicenzi L et al (2008) New trends in the evaluation and treatment of cervix cancer: the role of FDG-PET. Cancer Treat Rev 34:671–681PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khiewvan B, Torigian DA, Emamzadehfard S et al (2016) Update of the role of PET/CT and PET/MRI in the management of patients with cervical cancer. Hell J Nucl Med 19:254–268PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Choi HJ, Ju W, Myung SK, Kim Y (2010) Diagnostic performance of computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: meta-analysis. Cancer Sci 101:1471–1479PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, Chang YC, Winkler ML, Stern JL (1988) Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 166:623–631PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hawighorst H, Knapstein PG, Weikel W et al (1996) Cervical carcinoma: comparison of standard and pharmacokinetic MR imaging. Radiology 201:531–539PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kaur H, Silverman PM, Iyer RB, Verschraegen CF, Eifel PJ, Charnsangavej C (2003) Diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1621–1631PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zand KR (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervix. Cancer Imaging 7:69–76PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bhosale PR, Iyer RB, Ramalingam P et al (2016) Is MRI helpful in assessing the distance of the tumour from the internal os in patients with cervical cancer below FIGO Stage IB2? Clin Radiol 71:515–522PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mansour SM, Raafat M (2017) Is there an added role for diffusion weighted imaging in the staging of cervical carcinoma? Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 48:1131–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meiling Xiao
    • 1
  • Bicong Yan
    • 1
  • Ying Li
    • 1
  • Jingjing Lu
    • 1
  • Jinwei Qiang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Jinshan HospitalFudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations