nach oben

European Radiology

Erschienen in:

01.06.2014 | Magnetic Resonance

MR diffusion imaging for preoperative staging of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Anita Andreano, Gilda Rechichi, Paola Rebora, Sandro Sironi, Maria Grazia Valsecchi, Stefania Galimberti

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 6/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW) MR imaging in detecting deep myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer, using surgical-pathological staging as reference standard.

Methods

After searching a wide range of electronic databases and screening titles/abstracts, we obtained full papers for potentially eligible studies and evaluated according to predefined inclusion criteria. Quality assessment was conducted by adapting the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. From each study, we extracted information on diagnostic performance of DW and DCE sequences. After exploring heterogeneity, we adopted a bivariate generalized linear mixed model to compare the effect of the two MR sequences jointly on sensitivity and specificity.

Results

Nine studies (442 patients) were considered. Significant evidence of heterogeneity was found only for specificity, both in DW and DCE imaging (I ² = 70.8 % and 70.6 %). Pooled sensitivity of DW and DCE was 0.86 and specificity did not significantly differ (p = 0.16) between the two sequences (DW = 0.86 and DCE = 0.82). No difference was found between 3-T and 1.5-T MR. There was no evidence of publication bias.

Conclusions

MR diagnostic accuracy in presurgical detection of deep myometrial infiltration in endometrial cancer is high. DCE and DW imaging do not differ in sensitivity and specificity.

Key Points

• Myometrial invasion is the most important morphological prognostic feature of endometrial cancer

• MR diagnostic accuracy in presurgical detection of deep myometrial infiltration is high

• MR examination including T2 and DCE imaging is considered the reference standard

• DW imaging has been increasingly employed with heterogeneous results

• This meta-analysis shows that DCE and DW do not differ in diagnostic accuracy

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Ferlay J, Shin H-R, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM (2010) Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 127:2893–2917PubMedCrossRef

American Cancer Society (2013) Cancer facts & figures. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-036845.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2013

Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49:1374–1403PubMedCrossRef

Amant F, Mirza MR, Creutzberg CL (2012) Cancer of the corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 119:S110–S117PubMedCrossRef

Ludwig H (1995) Prognostic factors in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet 49:S1–S7CrossRef

Larson DM, Connor GP, Broste SK, Krawisz BR, Johnson KK (1996) Prognostic significance of gross myometrial invasion with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 88:394–398PubMedCrossRef

Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB (1987) Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer 60:2035–2041PubMedCrossRef

Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, Segal MR, Lu Y, Powell CB et al (1999) Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology 212:711–718PubMedCrossRef

Kinkel K, Forstner R, Danza FM et al (2009) Staging of endometrial cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Imaging. Eur Radiol 19:1565–1574PubMedCrossRef

10.

Hricak H, Stern JL, Fisher MR, Shapeero LG, Winkler ML, Lacey CG (1987) Endometrial carcinoma staging by MR imaging. Radiology 162:297–305PubMed

11.

Frei KA, Kinkel K, Bonél HM, Lu Y, Zaloudek C, Hricak H (2000) Prediction of deep myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MR imaging–a meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology 216:444–449PubMedCrossRef

12.

Lee JH, Dubinsky T, Andreotti RF et al (2011) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® pretreatment evaluation and follow-up of endometrial cancer of the uterus. Ultrasound Q 27:139–145PubMedCrossRef

13.

Hricak H, Hamm B, Semelka RC et al (1991) Carcinoma of the uterus: use of gadopentetate dimeglumine in MR imaging. Radiology 181:95–106PubMed

14.

Haldorsen IS, Husby JA, Werner HMJ et al (2012) Standard 1.5-T MRI of endometrial carcinomas: modest agreement between radiologists. Eur Radiol 22:1601–1611PubMedCrossRef

15.

Sala E, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, Mitchell DG, Reinhold C (2013) The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patients with gynecologic malignancies: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiology 266:717–740PubMedCrossRef

16.

Wakefield JC, Downey K, Kyriazi S, deSouza NM (2013) New MR techniques in gynecologic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:249–260PubMedCrossRef

17.

Padhani AR, Miles KA (2010) Multiparametric imaging of tumor response to therapy. Radiology 256:348–364PubMedCrossRef

18.

Patterson DM, Padhani AR, Collins DJ (2008) Technology insight: water diffusion MRI - a potential new biomarker of response to cancer therapy. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 5:220–233PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hellman RN (2011) Gadolinium-induced nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Semin Nephrol 31:310–316PubMedCrossRef

20.

Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L et al (2010) Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Heal Technol Assess Winch Engl 14:1–193

21.

Parekh-Bhurke S, Kwok CS, Pang C, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder JJ et al (2011) Uptake of methods to deal with publication bias in systematic reviews has increased over time, but there is still much scope for improvement. J Clin Epidemiol 64:349–357PubMedCrossRef

22.

Haynes RB, Kastner M, Wilczynski NL, Team H (2005) Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound and relevant causation studies in EMBASE. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak 5:8–14CrossRef

23.

Leeflang MMG, Scholten RJPM, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM (2006) Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. J Clin Epidemiol 59:234–240PubMedCrossRef

24.

De Vet HCW, Eisinga A, Riphagen II, Aertgeerts B, Pewsner D (2008) Chapter 7: searching for studies. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 0.4. Cochrane Collaboration. http://srdta.cochrane.org/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed 20 Oct 2013

25.

Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HCW, van der Windt DAWM et al (2002) Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2:9–21PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536PubMedCrossRef

27.

Creasman W (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105:109PubMedCrossRef

28.

Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P (2005) A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Heal Technol Assess 9:1–113

29.

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

30.

Chu H, Guo H, Zhou Y (2010) Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic studies using generalized linear mixed models. Med Decis Mak 30:499–508CrossRef

31.

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 58:882–893PubMedCrossRef

32.

Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M (2000) Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 53:1119–1129PubMedCrossRef

33.

Bharwani N, Miquel ME, Sahdev A et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging in the assessment of tumour grade in endometrial cancer. Br J Radiol 84:997–1004PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

34.

Masroor I, Zeeshan M, Afzal S, Ahmad N, Shafqat G (2010) Diffusion weighted MR imaging [DWI] and ADC values in endometrial carcinoma. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 20:709–713PubMed

35.

Inada Y, Matsuki M, Nakai G et al (2009) Body diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer: Is it helpful in the detection of cancer in nonenhanced MR imaging? Eur J Radiol 70:122–127PubMedCrossRef

36.

Kisu I, Banno K, Lin LY et al (2013) Preoperative and intraoperative assessment of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and frozen section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92:525–535PubMedCrossRef

37.

Zhang P, Tang Y, Li W, Hui N (2011) Value of magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging of endometrial carcinoma of early stage. Shanghai Jiaotong Daxue Xuebao 31:477–480

38.

An Q, Yang J, Zhu Y (2012) Diffusion weighted imaging and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of early stage endometrial cancer. Acta Acad Med Sin 34:486–491

39.

Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T et al (2007) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:682–687PubMedCrossRef

40.

Shen S-H, Chiou Y-Y, Wang JH et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted single-shot echo-planar imaging with parallel technique in assessment of endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:481–488PubMedCrossRef

41.

Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of endometrial cancer: differentiation from benign endometrial lesions and preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion. Acta Radiol Stockh Swed 50:947–953

42.

Lin G, Ng KK, Chang CJ et al (2009) Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted 3.0-T MR imaging–initial experience. Radiology 250:784–792PubMedCrossRef

43.

Rechichi G, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, Perego P, Valsecchi MG, Sironi S (2010) Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 1.5-T. Eur Radiol 20:754–762PubMedCrossRef

44.

Beddy P, Moyle P, Kataoka M et al (2012) Evaluation of depth of myometrial invasion and overall staging in endometrial cancer: comparison of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 262:530–537PubMedCrossRef

45.

Ren C, Xue H, Li S et al (2012) Clinical application of magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative evaluation of endometrial cancer. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 34:455–460PubMed

46.

Dogan D, Inan N, Sarisoy HT et al (2013) Preoperative evaluation of myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma: diagnostic performance of 3 T MRI. Abdom Imaging 38:388–396PubMedCrossRef

47.

Seo JM, Kim CK, Choi D, Kwan Park B (2013) Endometrial cancer: utility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with background body signal suppression at 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1151–1159PubMedCrossRef

48.

Hori M, Kim T, Onishi H et al (2013) Endometrial cancer: preoperative staging using three-dimensional T2-weighted turbo spin-echo and diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3.0 T: a prospective comparative study. Eur Radiol 23:2296–2305PubMedCrossRef

49.

Kido A, Fujimoto K, Okada T, Togashi K (2013) Advanced MRI in malignant neoplasms of the uterus. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:249–264PubMedCrossRef

50.

Beddy P, O’Neill AC, Yamamoto AK, Addley HC, Reinhold C, Sala E (2012) FIGO staging system for endometrial cancer: added benefits of MR imaging. Radiographics 32:241–254PubMedCrossRef

51.

Whittaker CS, Coady A, Culver L, Rustin G, Padwick M, Padhani AR (2009) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of female pelvic tumors: a pictorial review. Radiographics 29:759–774PubMedCrossRef

52.

Creasman WT, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P et al (2006) Carcinoma of the corpus uteri. FIGO 26th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 95:S105–S143PubMedCrossRef

53.

Merkle EM, Dale BM (2006) Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1524–1532PubMedCrossRef

54.

Takahara T, Imai Y, Yamashita T, Yasuda S, Nasu S, Van Cauteren M (2004) Diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): technical improvement using free breathing, STIR and high resolution 3D display. Radiat Med 22:275–282PubMed

55.

Kilickesmez O, Bayramoglu S, Inci E, Cimilli T, Kayhan A (2009) Quantitative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of normal and diseased uterine zones. Acta Radiol Stockh Swed 50:340–347

56.

Macaskill P, Gatsonis S, Deeks J, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y (2010) Chapter 10: analysing and presenting results. Cochrane handbook systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 10. Cochrane Collaboration. http://srdta.cochrane.org/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed 20 Oct 2013

57.

Rechichi G, Galimberti S, Oriani M et al (2013) ADC maps in the prediction of pelvic lymph nodal metastatic regions in endometrial cancer. Eur Radiol 23:65–74PubMedCrossRef

Titel: MR diffusion imaging for preoperative staging of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von: Anita Andreano
Gilda Rechichi
Paola Rebora
Sandro Sironi
Maria Grazia Valsecchi
Stefania Galimberti
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2014
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3139-4

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

23.04.2024 | Pankreaskarzinom | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

MR diffusion imaging for preoperative staging of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2014

Thoracic type Ia endoleak: direct percutaneous coil embolization of the aortic arch at the blood entry site after TEVAR and double-chimney stent-grafts

Assessment of portal hypertension and high-risk oesophageal varices with liver and spleen three-dimensional multifrequency MR elastography in liver cirrhosis

MRI-only lesions: application of diffusion-weighted imaging obviates unnecessary MR-guided breast biopsies

Diagnostic accuracy of segmental enhancement inversion for diagnosis of renal oncocytoma at biphasic contrast enhanced CT: systematic review

Correlation between three-dimensional ultrasound features and pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer

Core needle biopsy can minimise the non-diagnostic results and need for diagnostic surgery in patients with calcified thyroid nodules

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie