Efficacy of transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer: a prospective comparative study.
cancer staging
endometrial neoplasms
oncology
radiology
Journal
Radiology and oncology
ISSN: 1581-3207
Titre abrégé: Radiol Oncol
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 9317213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 02 2022
11 02 2022
Historique:
received:
03
09
2021
accepted:
13
12
2021
entrez:
11
2
2022
pubmed:
12
2
2022
medline:
26
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We compared the accuracy of preoperative transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) Study performed at a single tertiary centre from 2019 to 2021, included women with a histopathological proven EC, hospitalized for scheduled surgery. TVUS and MRI were performed prior to surgical staging for assessment MI, which was estimated using two objective TVUS methods (Gordon's and Karlsson's) and MRI. Patients were divided into two groups, after surgery and histopathological assessment of MI: superficial (≤ 50%) and deep (> 50%). Sixty patients were eligible for the study. According to the reference method, there were 34 (56.7%) cases in the study with MI < 50%, and 26 (43.3%) with MI > 50%. Both objective TVUS methods and MRI showed no statistical significant differences in overall diagnostic performance for the preoperative assessment of MI. The concordance coefficient between both TVUS methods, MRI and histopathology was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Gordon's method calculating MI reached a positive predictive value (PPV) of 83%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 83%, 77% sensitivity, 88% specificity, and 83% overall accuracy. Karlsson's method reached PPV of 82%, NPV of 79%, 69% sensitivity, 88% specificity, and 80% overall accuracy. Accordingly, MRI calculating MI reached PPV of 83%, NPV of 97%, 97% sensitivity, 85% specificity, and 90% overall accuracy. We found that objective TVUS assessment of myometrial invasion was performed with a diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of MRI in women with endometrial cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We compared the accuracy of preoperative transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS)
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Study performed at a single tertiary centre from 2019 to 2021, included women with a histopathological proven EC, hospitalized for scheduled surgery. TVUS and MRI were performed prior to surgical staging for assessment MI, which was estimated using two objective TVUS methods (Gordon's and Karlsson's) and MRI. Patients were divided into two groups, after surgery and histopathological assessment of MI: superficial (≤ 50%) and deep (> 50%).
RESULTS
Sixty patients were eligible for the study. According to the reference method, there were 34 (56.7%) cases in the study with MI < 50%, and 26 (43.3%) with MI > 50%. Both objective TVUS methods and MRI showed no statistical significant differences in overall diagnostic performance for the preoperative assessment of MI. The concordance coefficient between both TVUS methods, MRI and histopathology was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Gordon's method calculating MI reached a positive predictive value (PPV) of 83%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 83%, 77% sensitivity, 88% specificity, and 83% overall accuracy. Karlsson's method reached PPV of 82%, NPV of 79%, 69% sensitivity, 88% specificity, and 80% overall accuracy. Accordingly, MRI calculating MI reached PPV of 83%, NPV of 97%, 97% sensitivity, 85% specificity, and 90% overall accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that objective TVUS assessment of myometrial invasion was performed with a diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of MRI in women with endometrial cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35148470
pii: raon-2022-0005
doi: 10.2478/raon-2022-0005
pmc: PMC8884853
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
37-45Informations de copyright
© 2022 Anis Cerovac, Dzenita Ljuca, Lejla Arnautalic, Dubravko Habek, Gordana Bogdanovic, Jasminka Mustedanagic-Mujanovic, Gordana Grgic, published by Sciendo.
Références
Med Ultrason. 2022 Feb 16;24(1):77-84
pubmed: 33793698
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Feb;257:121-126
pubmed: 33383411
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Oct 15;8(10):19501-5
pubmed: 26770600
Ginekol Pol. 2019;90(3):128-133
pubmed: 30950001
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1318203
pubmed: 28812010
Med Sci Monit. 2019 Mar 18;25:2024-2031
pubmed: 30883538
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;46(4):405-13
pubmed: 26011665
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Aug;263:181-191
pubmed: 34218206
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Sep;42(3):353-8
pubmed: 23640790
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Apr;45(4):476-82
pubmed: 25092412
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;52(2):210-4
pubmed: 23915853
J Ultrasound Med. 2022 Feb;41(2):335-342
pubmed: 33780025
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021 Sep;47(9):3331-3338
pubmed: 34155730
J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;28(6):e86
pubmed: 29027404
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021 Jul;41(5):779-784
pubmed: 33063589
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Aug;19(6):1085-90
pubmed: 19820373
Indian J Surg Oncol. 2019 Mar;10(1):220-224
pubmed: 30948904
Cancer Imaging. 2018 Dec 4;18(1):45
pubmed: 30514387
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;47(3):369-73
pubmed: 26033260
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;31(5):560-6
pubmed: 18398926
Bratisl Lek Listy. 2014;115(1):14-8
pubmed: 24471896
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Sep;58(3):469-475
pubmed: 33533532
Acad Radiol. 2020 Jul;27(7):960-968
pubmed: 31636004
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 May;299(5):1391-1398
pubmed: 30719553
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019 Nov 21;:101647
pubmed: 31760175
Pathol Oncol Res. 2014 Apr;20(2):327-33
pubmed: 24293380