Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1271–1278 | Cite as

Diagnostic Performance of Computed Tomography for Preoperative Staging of Patients with Non-endometrioid Carcinomas of the Uterine Corpus

  • Yulia LakhmanEmail author
  • Seth S. Katz
  • Debra A. Goldman
  • Derya Yakar
  • Hebert A. Vargas
  • Ramon E. Sosa
  • Maura Miccò
  • Robert A. Soslow
  • Hedvig Hricak
  • Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum
  • Evis Sala
Gynecologic Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT) for initial staging of non-endometrioid carcinomas of the uterine corpus.

Materials and Methods

Waiving informed consent, the Institutional Review Board approved this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant retrospective study of 193 women with uterine papillary serous carcinomas, clear cell carcinomas, and carcinosarcomas, who underwent surgical staging between May 1998 and December 2011 and had preoperative CT within 6 weeks before surgery. Two radiologists (R1, R2) independently reviewed all CT images. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and area under the curve were calculated using operative notes and surgical pathology as the reference standard.

Results

The respective sensitivities and specificities achieved by R1/R2 were 0.79/0.64 and 0.87/0.75 for detecting deep myometrial invasion (MI) on CT; 0.56/0.63 and 0.93/0.79 for detecting cervical stromal invasion; 0.52/0.45 and 0.95/0.93 for detecting pelvic nodal metastases; and 0.45/0.30 and 0.98/0.98 for detecting para-aortic nodal metastases. Although CT had suboptimal sensitivity for the detection of omental disease, it had high PPV for omental seeding at surgical exploration (1.00 for R1 and 0.92 for R2). Inter-observer agreement ranged from moderate in the detection of deep MI (κ = 0.42 ± 0.06) to almost perfect in the detection of para-aortic nodal metastases (κ = 0.88 ± 0.08).

Conclusion

In patients with uterine non-endometrioid carcinomas, CT is only moderately accurate for initial staging but may provide clinically valuable information by ‘ruling-in’ isolated para-aortic lymph node metastases and omental dissemination.

Keywords

Endometrial Cancer Positive Predictive Value National Comprehensive Cancer Network Preoperative Compute Tomography Myometrial Invasion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Ada Muellner, MS, for her editorial assistance.

Disclosure

Yulia Lakhman, Seth S. Katz, Debra A. Goldman, Derya Yakar, Hebert A. Vargas, Ramon E. Sosa, Maura Miccò, Robert A. Soslow, Hedvig Hricak, Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum, and Evis Sala have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, et al. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;66(1):9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Doll A, Abal M, Rigau M, et al. Novel molecular profiles of endometrial cancer: new light through old windows. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2008;108:221–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tejerizo-Garcia A, Jimenez-Lopez JS, Munoz-Gonzalez JL, et al. Overall survival and disease-free survival in endometrial cancer: prognostic factors in 276 patients. Onco Targets Ther. 2013;9:1305–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hendrickson M, Ross J, Eifel PJ, Cox RS, Martinez A, Kempson R. Adenocarcinoma of the endometrium: analysis of 256 cases with carcinoma limited to the uterine corpus. Pathology review and analysis of prognostic factors. Gynecol Oncol. 1982;13:373–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, Timmerman D, Van Limbergen E, Vergote I. Endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2005;366:491–505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105:103–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    NCCN. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. www.nccn.org. Accessed 8 Jun 2014.
  8. 8.
    Bansal N, Herzog TJ, Brunner-Brown A, Wethington SL, Cohen CJ, Burke WM, et al. The utility and cost effectiveness of preoperative computed tomography for patients with uterine malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:208–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Connor JP, Andrews JI, Anderson B, Buller RE. Computed tomography in endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:692–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zerbe MJ, Bristow R, Grumbine FC, Montz FJ. Inability of preoperative computed tomography scans to accurately predict the extent of myometrial invasion and extracorporal spread in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:67–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    AlHilli MM, Mariani A. The role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;18:193–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, et al. Local-regional staging of endometrial cancer: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology. 2004;231:372–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, Segal MR, Lu Y, Powell CB, et al. Radiological staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology. 1999;212:711–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsili AC, Tsampoulas C, Dalkalitsis N, Stefanou D, Paraskevaidis E, Efremidis SC. Local staging of endometrial cancer: role of multidetector CT. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1043–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Balfe DM, Van Dyke J, Lee JK, Weyman PJ, McClennan BL. Computed tomography in malignant endometrial neoplasms. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1983;7:677–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Varpula MJ, Klemi PJ. Staging of uterine endometrial carcinoma with ultra-low field (0.02 T) MRI: a comparative study with CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1993;17:641–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    La Fianza A, Di Maggio EM, Preda L, Coscia D, Tateo S, Campani R. Clinical usefulness of CT in the treatment of stage I endometrial carcinoma. Radiol Med. 1997;93:567–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Antonsen SL, Jensen LN, Loft A, et al. MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer: a multicenter prospective comparative study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128:300–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horowitz NS, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of FDG-PET for dectecting pelvic and paraaorticlymph node metastases in uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95(3):546–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suzuki R, Miyagi E, Takahashi N, et al. Validity of positron emission tomography using fluoro-2-deoxyglucose for the preoperative evaluation of endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17(4):890–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hendrickson M, Ross J, Eifel P, Martinez A, Kempson R. Uterine papillary serous carcinoma: a highly malignant form of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1982;6:93–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abeler VM, Vergote IB, Kjorstad KE, Kjorstad KE, Trope CG. Clear cell carcinoma of the endometrium. prognosis and metastatic pattern. Cancer. 1996;78:1740–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG, et al. Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities: report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncologic Group. Radiology. 2000;215:761–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA, et al. Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology. 2002;223:495–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Low RN, Chen SC, Barone R, et al. Distinguishing benign from malignant bowel obstruction in patients with malignancy: findings at MRI. Radiology. 2003;228:157–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yulia Lakhman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Seth S. Katz
    • 1
  • Debra A. Goldman
    • 2
  • Derya Yakar
    • 1
    • 3
  • Hebert A. Vargas
    • 1
  • Ramon E. Sosa
    • 1
  • Maura Miccò
    • 1
    • 4
  • Robert A. Soslow
    • 5
  • Hedvig Hricak
    • 1
  • Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum
    • 6
  • Evis Sala
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Bioimaging and Radiological ScienceCatholic University “A. Gemelli” HospitalRomeItaly
  5. 5.Department of PathologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Gynecologic Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations