Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of tumor size and local invasion of surgically treated cervical cancer

  • Classics in Abdominal Radiology
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This retrospective study aimed to compare the performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging surgically treated early-stage cervical cancer.

Methods

Patients with surgically treated cervical carcinoma confirmed by post-operative pathological findings were included between December 2016 and December 2018. All included patients underwent both CEUS and MRI examinations before the surgery. Post-operative pathology was used as the gold standard. The κ values were calculated to assess the agreements of CEUS and MRI in staging cervical carcinoma in comparison with post-operative pathology.

Results

Complete data were available for 39 patients. CEUS showed great inter-observer reproducibility in tumor measurement [Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) 0.831] and moderate inter-observer reproducibility in the evaluation of vaginal infiltration and parametrial invasion (Cohen's κ 0.692 and 0.624). Tumor size was comparable as measured by CEUS and MRI (ICC 0.769). Both CEUS and MRI presented good concordance with post-operative pathology in staging cervical cancer (weighted κ 0.732 and 0.761).

Conclusion

CEUS was comparable to MRI in staging surgically treated cervical cancer and might be considered in the pre-treatment work-up for cervical cancer.

Graphical abstract

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

Abbreviations

FIGO:

International Federation for Gynecology and Obstetrics

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

CEUS:

Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography

DWI:

Diffusion weighted images

ICC:

Intra-class correlation coefficient

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. [1] Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. [2] Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, Kehoe ST, Konishi I, Olawaiye AB, Prat J, Sankaranarayanan R, Brierley J, Mutch D, Querleu D, Cibula D, Quinn M, Botha H, Sigurd L, Rice L, Ryu HS, Ngan H, Mäenpää J, Andrijono A, Purwoto G, Maheshwari A, Bafna UD, Plante M, Natarajan J. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019; 145:129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaur H, Silverman P M, Iyer RB, Verschraegen CF, Eifel PJ, Charnsangavej C. Diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 1801621–1631.

  4. [4] Lee SI, Atri M. 2018 FIGO Staging System for Uterine Cervical Cancer: Enter Cross-sectional Imaging. Radiol. 2019; 292:15-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. [5] Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;143 (Suppl2):22-36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. [6] Balcacer P, Shergill A, Litkouhi B. MRI of cervical cancer with a surgical perspective: staging, prognostic implications and pitfalls. Abdominal Radiol. 2019; 44:2557-2571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. [7] Thomeer MG, Gerestein C, Spronk S, van Doorn HC, van der Ham E, Hunink MG. Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23:2005–2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. [8] Gaurilcikas A, Vaitkiene D, Cizauskas A, Inciura A, Svedas E, Maciuleviciene R, Di Legge A, Ferrandina G, Testa AC, Valentin L. Early-stage cervical cancer: agreement between ultrasound and histopathological findings with regard to tumor size and extent of local disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 38:707-715.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. [9] Testa AC, Ludovisi M, Manfredi R, Zannoni G, Gui B, Basso D, Di Legge A, Licameli A, Di Bidino R, Scambia G, Ferrandina G. Transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of presence, size and extent of invasive cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 34:335-344.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. [10] Dietrich CF, Nolsøe CP, Barr RG, Berzigotti A, Burns PN, Cantisani V, Chammas MC, Chaubal N, Choi BI, Clevert DA, Cui X, Dong Y, D'Onofrio M, Fowlkes JB, Gilja OH, Huang P, Ignee A, Jenssen C, Kono Y, Kudo M, Lassau N, Lee WJ, Lee JY, Liang P, Lim A, Lyshchik A, Meloni MF, Correas JM, Minami Y, Moriyasu F, Nicolau C, Piscaglia F, Saftoiu A, Sidhu PS, Sporea I, Torzilli G, Xie X, Zheng R. Guidelines and Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Liver - Update 2020 - WFUMB in Cooperation with EFSUMB, AFSUMB, AIUM, and FLAUS. Ultraschall Med. 2020;41:562-585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. [11] Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, Gilja OH, Saftoiu A, Bartels E, Bertolotto M, Calliada F, Clevert DA, Cosgrove D, Deganello A, D'Onofrio M, Drudi FM, Freeman S, Harvey C, Jenssen C, Jung EM, Klauser AS, Lassau N, Meloni MF, Leen E, Nicolau C, Nolsoe C, Piscaglia F, Prada F, Prosch H, Radzina M, Savelli L, Weskott HP, Wijkstra H. The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations for the Clinical Practice of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in Non-Hepatic Applications: Update 2017 (Long Version). Ultraschall Med. 2018;39:e2-e44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. [12] Pálsdóttir K, Epstein E. A pilot study on diagnostic performance of contrast-Enhanced ultrasonography for detection of early cervical cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018; 44: 1644-1671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. [13] Testa AC, Ferrandina G, Fruscella E, Van Holsbeke C, Ferrazzi E, Leone FP, Arduini D, Exacoustos C, Bokor D, Scambia G, Timmerman D. The use of contrasted transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of gynecologic diseases: a preliminary study. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:1267-1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. [14] Zheng W, Xiong YH, Han J, Guo ZX, Li YH, Li AH, Pei XQ. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of cervical carcinoma: perfusion pattern and relationship with tumour angiogenesis. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20150887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. [15] Zheng W, Chen K, Peng C, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography versus MRI for evaluation of local invasion by cervical cancer. Br J Radiol. 2018; 91:20170858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. [16] Juan AD, Redondo A, Rubio MJ, García Y, Cueva J, Gaba L, Yubero A, Alarcón J, Maximiano C, Oaknin A. SEOM clinical guidelines for cervical cancer (2019). Clin Transl Oncol. 2020;22:270-278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. [17] Epstein E, Testa A, Gaurilcikas A, Di Legge A, Ameye L, Atstupenaite V, Valentini AL, Gui B, Wallengren NO, Pudaric S, Cizauskas A, Måsbäck A, Zannoni GF, Kannisto P, Zikan M, Pinkavova I, Burgetova A, Dundr P, Nemejcova K, Cibula D, Fischerova D. Early-stage cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound - a European multicenter trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128:449-453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. [18] Hsiao CY, Chen PD, Huang KW. A prospective assessment of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound, dynamic computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for patients with small liver tumors. J Clin Med. 2019; 8:E1353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. [19] Maruyama H, Sekimoto T, Yokosuka O. Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with Sonazoid for hepatocellular carcinoma: evidence from a 10-year experience. J. Gastroenterol 2016; 51:421-433

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 91859115).

Funding

Funding was provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 91859115).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Manli Wu, Jiawei Wu, and Licong Huang have contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, 600 Tianhe Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510630, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

    Manli Wu, Jiawei Wu, Licong Huang, Ying Chen, Enze Qu, Jing Xu, Xiaohong Kuang & Xinling Zhang

Authors
  1. Manli Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiawei Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Licong Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ying Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Enze Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jing Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xiaohong Kuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xinling Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MW: acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, final approval of the version to be submitted. JW: analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, final approval of the version to be submitted. LH: acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, final approval of the version to be submitted. YC: acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, final approval of the version to be submitted. EQ: analysis and interpretation of data, final approval of the version to be submitted. JX: analysis and interpretation of data, final approval of the version to be submitted. XK: acquisition of data, final approval of the version to be submitted. XZ: the conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, revising it critically for important intellectual content, final approval of the version to be submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinling Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, M., Wu, J., Huang, L. et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of tumor size and local invasion of surgically treated cervical cancer. Abdom Radiol 47, 2928–2936 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03558-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03558-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation