Open AccessContrast‐enhanced MRI in preoperative assessment of myometrial and cervical invasion, and lymph node metastasis: diagnostic value and error analysis in endometrial carcinoma
Author(s) -
Teng Fei,
Zhang YanFang,
Wang YingMei,
Yu Jing,
Lang Xu,
Tian WenYan,
Jiang ChangXin,
Xue FengXia
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
acta obstetricia et gynecologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.401
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1600-0412
pISSN - 0001-6349
DOI - 10.1111/aogs.12570
Subject(s) - medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , radiology , carcinoma , lymph node metastasis , metastasis , lymph node , positive predicative value , endometrium , stage (stratigraphy) , retrospective cohort study , predictive value of tests , pathology , predictive value , cancer , paleontology , biology
Objective To determine the ability of contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to predict myometrial invasion, cervical invasion, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in endometrial carcinoma and to analyze factors that lead to errors in this identification. Design A retrospective study. Setting University general hospital. Population A total of 167 women diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma. Methods All patients received a preoperative contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging scan. Histopathological findings were used as the definitive diagnosis. Main outcome measures The results were compared with histopathological findings, factors that make accurate assessment of myometrial invasion, cervical invasion, and pelvic lymph node metastasis difficult by contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging were analyzed. Results The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging were 90.9, 91.8, 91.6, 73.2 and 97.6%, respectively, for identifying deep myometrial invasion; 84.2, 96.0, 94.6, 72.7 and 97.9%, respectively, for identifying cervical invasion; and 45.0, 91.2, 85.6, 40.9 and 92.4%, respectively, for identifying pelvic lymph node metastasis. The main causes of error in contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging were myomas, cornual lesions, deep myometrial invasion, large tumor size, non‐endometrioid tumor type, and lower tumor grade. Conclusion Contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging has a high accuracy and a low tendency to produce false‐negative predictive values. Gynecological oncologists should combine the imaging data and clinical information to make therapeutic decisions and avoid diagnostic errors.