Diagnostic Value of Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Diffusion Weighted Imaging in the Staging of Endometrial Carcinoma

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Radiologist, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Professor, Department of Gynecology Oncology, Women's Health Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

5 B.Sc. student of Radiology, Student Research Committee, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: The staging of endometrial carcinoma is now performed based on postoperative pathological assessments. If the staging of the cancer could be possible with a preoperative non-invasive method, based on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics system, a more appropriate treatment protocol can be recommended for patients. This study was performed aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging in the staging of endometrial carcinoma, based on the postoperative histopathological reference standard.
Methods: This prospective study was conducted in 2016-2021 on 35 patients with endometrial cancer referred to Ghaem Hospital in Mashhad. The staging of endometrial cancer was performed based on MRI findings and pathological samples. The diagnostic value of MRI was calculated to distinguish stages 1 from 2 and 1A from 1B . The lesion dimensions in the MRI and the pathological samples were compared using independent-sample t-test and the lesion dimensions between different stages using the ANOVA test by SPSS (version 17). P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: According to the findings of MRI and pathology, the majority of patients (93.3%) were in stage 1, and 2 (6.7%) were in stage 2. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value in differentiating stage 1 from stage 2 was 100%, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of MRI in differentiating IA from IB was 100%.
Conclusion: It seems that dMRI by DWI method can be used in the staging of endometrial tumors in the initial stages (stage 1 from 2 and IA from IB) with diagnostic value.

Keywords

References

  1. Terry KL, Missmer SA. Epidemiology of ovarian and endometrial cancers. InPathology and Epidemiology of Cancer: Springer, Cham; 2017: 233-46.
  2. Gari A, AlJefri H, Khalifa R, Allarakia S, Hussein K. CA125 Asa Predictor for Lymph Node Metastasis in Endometrial Cancer. Hypertension ;40: 50.
  3. Lax SF. Pathology of endometrial carcinoma. InMolecular Genetics of Endometrial Carcinoma: Springer, Cham; 2017: 75-96.
  4. Aracki-Trenkic A, Stojanov D, Petric A, Benedeto-Stojanov D, Trenkic M, Ignjatovic J. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of endometrial carcinoma. image 2016; 13:14.
  5. Park JY, Lee JJ, Choi HJ, Song IH, Sung CO, Kim HO, et al. The value of preoperative positron emission tomography/computed tomography in node-negative endometrial cancer on magnetic resonance imaging. Annals of surgical oncology 2017; 24(8):2303-10.
  6. Lin G, Huang YT, Chao A, Lin YC, Yang LY, Wu RC, et al. Endometrial cancer with cervical stromal invasion: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging at 3T. European radiology 2017; 27(5):1867-76.
  7. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M. Evaluating myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: comparison of reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences 2018; 17(1):28.
  8. Sato K, Fukushima Y. Magnetic Resonance Diffusion-Weighted Imaging: Endometrial Cancer. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada: JOGC= Journal D'obstetrique et Gynecologie du Canada: JOGC 2017; 39(2):69-.
  9. Kececi IS, Nural MS, Aslan K, Danacı M, Kefeli M, Tosun M. Efficacy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and staging of endometrial tumors. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging 2016; 97(2):177-86.
  10. Du L, Yu Y, Wang Y, Xia J, Qiu X, Lei Y. The diagnostic value of multimodality MRI in endometrial carcinoma staging. Acta Radiologica 2017; 58(5):609-16.
  11. Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, Margariti PA, Testa A, Zannoni GF, et al. Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology 2004; 231(2):372-8.
  12. Haldorsen IS, Salvesen HB. Staging of endometrial carcinomas with MRI using traditional and novel MRI techniques. Clinical radiology 2012; 67(1):2-12.
  13. Shen SH, Chiou YY, Wang JH, Yen MS, Lee RC, Lai CR, et al. Diffusion-weighted single-shot echo-planar imaging with parallel technique in assessment of endometrial cancer. American Journal of Roentgenology 2008; 190(2):481-8.
  14. Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kigawa J, Sato S, Kanasaki Y, Nakanishi J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating benign from malignant uterine endometrial cavity lesions: initial results. European radiology 2008; 18(2):384-9.
  15. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of endometrial cancer: differentiation from benign endometrial lesions and preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion. Acta radiologica 2009; 50(8):947-53.
  16. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, Umeoka S, Mikami Y, Fujii S, et al. Diffusion‐weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2007; 26(3):682-7.
  17. Inada Y, Matsuki M, Nakai G, Tatsugami F, Tanikake M, Narabayashi I, et al. Body diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer: is it helpful in the detection of cancer in nonenhanced MR imaging?. European journal of radiology 2009; 70(1):122-7.
  18. Coussoou C, Laigle-Quérat V, Loussouarn D, Vaucel E, Frampas E. Performances de l’IRM dans le bilan d’extension locale préopératoire des cancers de l’endomètre: L’expérience nantaise. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité & Sénologie 2020; 48(4):374-83.
  19. Hwang JH, Lee NW, Lee KW, Lee JK. Magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of deep endometrial invasion for patients with endometrial carcinoma. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009; 49(5):537-41.
  20. Lin G, Ng KK, Chang CJ, Wang JJ, Ho KC, Yen TC, et al. Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted 3.0-T MR imaging—initial experience. Radiology 2009; 250(3):784-92.
  21. Shin KE, Park BK, Kim CK, Bae DS, Song SY, Kim B. MR staging accuracy for endometrial cancer based on the new FIGO stage. Acta Radiologica 2011; 52(7):818-24.
  22. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 105(2):103-4.
  23. Beddy P, Moyle P, Kataoka M, Yamamoto AK, Joubert I, Lomas D, et al. Evaluation of depth of myometrial invasion and overall staging in endometrial cancer: comparison of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2012; 262(2):530-7.
  24. Sabour S. The diagnostic value of multimodality MRI in endometrial carcinoma staging: methodological issues to avoid misinterpretation. Acta Radiologica 2018; 59(7):NP3-4.
The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility
Volume 25, Issue 5
July 2022
Pages 18-25

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics