Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kinkel, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hricak, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kinkel, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hricak, H.
(Radiology. 1999;212:711-718.)
© RSNA, 1999

Genitourinary Imaging

Radiologic Staging in Patients with Endometrial Cancer: A Meta-analysis1

Karen Kinkel, MD, Yasushi Kaji, MD, Kyle K. Yu, MD, Mark R. Segal, PhD, Ying Lu, PhD, C. Bethan Powell, MD and Hedvig Hricak, MD, PhD

1 From the Departments of Radiology (K.K., H.H., Y.K., K.K.Y., Y.L.), Biostatistics (M.R.S.), and Gynecologic Oncology (C.B.P.), University of California-San Francisco, Box 0628, 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628. Received September 9, 1998; revision requested October 26; revision received November 25; accepted April 16, 1999. K.K. supported in part by a grant from the French Society of Radiology. K.K.Y. supported in part by a GE-AUR Radiology Research Associate Fellowship. Address reprint requests to H.H. (e-mail: Hedvig.Hricak@radiology.ucsf.edu).


   Abstract
TOP
 Abstract
Introduction
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
PURPOSE: To apply a meta-analysis to compare the utility of computed tomography (CT), ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in staging endometrial cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from a MEDLINE literature search and from manual reviews of article bibliographies. Articles were selected that included results in patients with proved endometrial cancer and imaging-histopathologic correlation and that presented data that allowed calculation of contingency tables. Data for the imaging evaluation of myometrial and cervical invasion were abstracted independently by two authors. Data on year of publication, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage distribution, and methodologic quality were also collected. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare contrast medium–enhanced MR imaging with nonenhanced MR imaging, US, and CT.

RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria for CT; 16, for US; and 25, for MR imaging. Summary receiver operating characteristic analysis showed no significant differences in the overall performance of CT, US, and MR imaging. In the assessment of myometrial invasion, however, contrast-enhanced MR imaging performed significantly better than did nonenhanced MR imaging or US (P < .002) and demonstrated a trend toward better results, as compared with CT. The lack of data on the assessment of cervical invasion at CT or US prevented meta-analytic comparison with data obtained at MR imaging. Results were not influenced by year of publication, FIGO stage distribution, or methodologic quality.

CONCLUSION: Although US, CT, or MR imaging can be used in the pretreatment evaluation of endometrial cancer, contrast-enhanced MR imaging offers "one-stop" examination with the highest efficacy.

Index terms: Computed tomography (CT), comparative studies, 854.12111 • Lymphatic system, neoplasms, 99.33 • Magnetic resonance (MR), comparative studies, 854.1214 • Pelvic organs, CT, 854.12111 • Pelvic organs, MR, 854.1214, 854.12143 • Pelvic organs, US, 854.1298 • Ultrasound (US), comparative studies, 854.1298 • Uterine neoplasms, 854.32 • Uterus, endometrium, 854.32


   Introduction
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
Treatment and prognosis of endometrial carcinoma is influenced by tumor morphologic prognostic factors that include depth of myometrial invasion, cervical extension, and lymph node metastasis (1–4). As clinical staging carries an overall understaging rate of 13%–22%, routine surgical staging has been recommended by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) since 1988 (5). Lymphadenectomy and pre- or postoperative radiation therapy are indicated in patients at high risk of extrauterine disease or lymph node metastasis. Since the probability of extrauterine disease and lymph node metastasis correlates with the depth of myometrial invasion, preoperative knowledge of myometrial invasion directly influences the choice of treatment (6). Furthermore, tumor extension into the cervix affects the type of surgery, and parametrial invasion requires irradiation as the first treatment or a more radical surgical approach.

The diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, computed tomography (CT), and ultrasonography (US) in assessing myometrial invasion and cervical extension has been extensively evaluated. Results from studies (7,8) in which MR imaging was compared with CT suggest MR imaging is more accurate than CT. Investigators (9,10) who have compared MR imaging with endovaginal US have reported similar performances for both techniques. However, to our knowledge, only one group of investigators (11) has compared the three techniques in the same patient population (n = 26). In addition, when taken individually, each of these studies lacks the statistical power to determine whether differences between the techniques are significant or represent merely random variation.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method that allows the results of individual studies to be combined and that allows the literature to be reviewed systematically (12,13). We undertook a meta-analysis to compare the three modalities and to define evidence-based imaging guidelines for staging endometrial cancer.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
Data Sources
A comprehensive search of abstracts of English-language articles on studies in human subjects was performed by using the following key words on the MEDLINE database: uterine neoplasms or endometrial carcinoma with CT, MR imaging, or US. Considering the time of clinical introduction of each modality, we conducted the searches from January 1980 to September 1997 for US and CT and from January 1985 to September 1997 for MR imaging. Review articles, letters, comments, and articles that did not present raw data were excluded.

To identify additional relevant references, the reference lists of the articles retrieved were checked manually. Unpublished data were not included. A total of 84 articles were found: Sixty-eight were published in English; seven, in Japanese; four, in French; three, in Italian; and two, in German.

Study Selection
The studies included in the meta-analysis met the following inclusion criteria: (a) the patients had a histologic diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma; (b) the standard of reference was surgical staging with histopathologic results; (c) the presented data were obtained by observers who were blinded to the pathologic results; (d) the presented data allowed for the calculation of true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative results for imaging tests; and (e) the data or a subset of the data was not published more than once.

Forty-seven of 84 references fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Table 1). Thirty-seven of 84 references were excluded. Reasons for exclusion were incomplete or inconclusive data (n = 25), presurgical radiation therapy after imaging (n = 3), lack of surgical staging with histopathologic results (n = 3), results presented in two publications (n = 3), imaging interpretation with knowledge of pathologic results (n = 2), and patient selection based on imaging quality (selection bias, n = 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Results of MEDLINE Search and Study Selection for Radiologic Staging of Endometrial Cancer
 
Data Extraction
Articles published in Japanese, Italian, French, or German were translated into English. Two readers (K.K., Y.K.) abstracted the data from each article. When disagreement occurred, a third reader reviewed the article, and the disagreement was resolved in conference. The readers were not blinded to the authors, journal, or year of publication.

The following data were recorded for each article: (a) sample size; (b) stage distribution, by using FIGO staging guidelines (Table 2); (c) imaging modality (CT, US, MR imaging) and technique (helical vs nonhelical CT, transabdominal vs combined transabdominal and transvaginal US, frequency of US transducer, contrast medium–enhanced vs nonenhanced MR imaging, magnetic field strength [in tesla] of MR imaging equipment); (d) design of imaging interpretation (prospective, retrospective, not specified); (e) diagnostic criteria used for image interpretation; and (f) true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative study results for the staging elements of myometrial invasion, cervical invasion, presence of extrauterine disease, and presence of lymph node metastasis.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. Revised Surgical FIGO Staging of Endometrial Carcinoma
 
Articles were included if they contained results for only one staging element (such as myometrial invasion) or if only a subgroup of patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. If an article presented data on more than one staging element, inclusion and exclusion criteria were checked for each discrete data set.

Methodologic Quality Rating
The methodologic quality rating was based on four criteria, as follows: (a) adequate description of the study group (selection criteria were defined, and patient characteristics were presented), (b) adequate description of diagnostic criteria (imaging staging criteria were defined, and staging results were presented accordingly), (c) no potential work-up bias (results of imaging did not influence the decision to perform surgery), and (d) congruence of presented data.

Studies were classified as "high quality" if they met all methodologic requirements, "medium quality" if they met three methodologic requirements, "fair quality" if they met two methodologic requirements, and "not acceptable" if they met only one methodologic requirement.

Data Analysis
The meta-analytic method used in our study was based on summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (14,15). Sensitivity and specificity were recalculated for each reference study by using the conventional corrections for zero counts (16). Because of the interdependence of sensitivity and specificity (Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.5 for CT, -0.22 for US, and -0.23 for MR imaging), quantitative integration of data by means of standard meta-analytic methods for the comparison of CT, US, and MR imaging was considered inappropriate.

To compare the three imaging modalities, we used summary ROC analysis, which accounts for the interdependence between sensitivity and specificity. Summary ROC, a mathematic transformation of sensitivity and specificity, has been described by Moses et al (14). In addition, transformed data of all studies were combined through a robust regression (Huber M-regression) analysis (17) in a regression line. The robust regression analysis reduces the effect of heterogeneity among studies by attributing appropriate weights to each study according to its deviation from the normal distribution. The regression line is then back-transformed into a summary ROC curve. By combining the data from all studies, summary ROC curves were independent of the diagnostic thresholds that were used to diagnose deep myometrial invasion.

Following the guidelines for fitting summary ROC curves, we obtained corresponding single-number summaries. These were the points on the summary ROC curve where sensitivity and specificity are equal (Q* values). Testing for differences between CT, US, and MR imaging was based on Q* values and on their associated standard errors.

Covariate Adjustment
To determine whether imaging results were significantly affected by heterogeneity in the studies, we extracted covariates, including the severity of disease (FIGO stage distribution in the study population), year of publication, results of methodologic quality rating, and subtype of imaging technique (contrast-enhanced vs nonenhanced MR imaging, transabdominal vs combined transabdominal and transvaginal US). Covariate adjustment analysis was performed by applying a series of statistical tests that followed the method described by Moses et al (14).


   RESULTS
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 References
 
Literature Search
Among the 47 studies included, only one group of investigators (11) compared CT with US and MR imaging, two groups (9,10) compared MR imaging with US, and two groups (7,8) compared MR imaging with CT. Data were collected from six groups (7,8,11,18–20) that evaluated CT, from 16 groups (9–11,21–33) that evaluated US, and from 25 groups (7–11,34–53) that evaluated MR imaging (Table 1). Two authors presented MR imaging results from the same population twice, but the second results were obtained by using different imaging techniques. Data from both of these studies were combined and were presented as one study with two subgroups.

Subsets of data were obtained for the assessment of myometrial invasion in 42 studies, of cervical invasion in 14 studies, of extrauterine disease in six studies, and of lymph node metastasis in one study. Because of the limited number of investigators who evaluated extrauterine disease and lymph node metastasis, meta-analytic comparison between imaging modalities for these staging elements was not possible, and these data sets were, therefore, excluded from the analysis. Studies were performed prospectively (n = 19) or retrospectively (n = 3), or the method of data collection was not specified (n = 25).

Overall Performance
Data sets on myometrial invasion and cervical involvement were combined for the evaluation of overall staging performance for each imaging modality. Because of the interdependence of sensitivity and specificity, we used summary ROC analysis to compare the three imaging modalities. Summary ROC analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the performance of CT, US, and MR imaging (Fig 1). Q* values were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.98) for CT, 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.91) for US, and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.89) for MR imaging.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Summary ROC curves for CT, US, and MR imaging for overall staging (myometrial and cervical assessment). MR imaging curve is positioned above and crosses the US curve immediately above the Q* point (where sensitivity equals specificity), as indicated by the diagonal line. CT curve has the lowest position. Differences in overall staging performance are not significant.

 
To test the validity of the results, a covariate analysis, which took into account the separate, potentially significant covariates, was performed. This analysis showed imaging results were not influenced by year of publication, stage distribution, or methodologic quality rating.

Myometrial Invasion
Data on myometrial invasion met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis in six of six studies with CT (203 patients, articles published between 1982 and 1995), in 16 of 16 studies with US (611 patients, articles published between 1987 and 1996), and in 20 of 25 studies with MR imaging (742 patients, articles published between 1987 and 1997) (Table 3). All studies of CT included the use of iodinated contrast media administered intravenously; none of the studies included use of helical CT.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3. Assessment of Myometrial Invasion at CT, US, and MR Imaging
 
Among the 16 articles on US, 14 data sets were obtained with and two data sets were obtained without the use of an endovaginal probe. The small number of data sets that were obtained without the use of an endovaginal probe precluded a meta-analytic comparison among US techniques. Frequencies of endovaginal US transducers were 5.0 MHz (n = 6), 6.5 MHz (n = 1), 5.0–6.5 MHz (n = 1), and 5.0–7.5 MHz (n = 6).

Among the 20 articles on MR imaging, nine data sets with and 18 data sets without the use of intravenous contrast media were available for meta-analytic comparison. Magnetic field strength was 1.5 T (n = 12); 1.0 T (n = 1); 0.5 T (n = 5); 0.35 T (n = 2); 0.02 T (n = 1); unknown (n = 4); or varied from 0.15 to 1.5 T because the study was multiinstitutional (n = 2).

Q* values were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.96) for CT, 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.88) for US, 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.89) for MR imaging, 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.87) for nonenhanced MR imaging, and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.92) for contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Summary ROC curves were obtained for the comparison among CT, US, and MR imaging (Fig 2); between contrast-enhanced MR imaging and nonenhanced MR imaging (Fig 3); and among CT, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging (Fig 4). For the comparison among CT, US, and MR imaging, the summary ROC curves were of similar shape and showed no significant differences in performance (Fig 2). Comparison between MR imaging techniques showed significantly better results for contrast-enhanced versus nonenhanced MR imaging (P < .001) (Fig 3). Differences in Q* values did reach statistical significance when contrast-enhanced MR imaging was compared with US (P = .002). The summary ROC curves also showed a trend toward higher diagnostic accuracy for contrast-enhanced MR imaging than for CT (P = .18) (Fig 4).



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Summary ROC curves for CT, US, and MR imaging for the evaluation of myometrial invasion. MR imaging curve, which combines contrast-enhanced with nonenhanced studies, crosses the US curve slightly below the Q* point. Q* point on the CT curve is below the other curves, which demonstrates the lowest, but not a significantly different, performance.

 


View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Summary ROC curves for contrast-enhanced and nonenhanced MR imaging for the evaluation of myometrial invasion. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve was positioned above the nonenhanced MR imaging curve at every point, which indicates significantly better performance (P < .001) in depicting myometrial invasion.

 


View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Summary ROC curves for contrast-enhanced MR imaging versus CT and US for the evaluation of myometrial invasion. Curves have similar shapes. Higher position of the contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve indicates a significantly better performance (P = .002) than US. Comparison between CT and contrast-enhanced MR imaging reveals a trend toward better results for contrast-enhanced MR imaging (P = .18).

 
Cervical Involvement
Only two of six studies of CT (published in 1982 or 1995) with data on 56 patients, two of 16 studies of US (published in 1989 or 1994) with data on 162 patients, and 10 of 25 studies of MR imaging (published between 1987 and 1996) with data on 318 patients had sufficient data to be included in this subgroup (Table 4). Q* values could be calculated only for MR imaging (0.92; 95% CI: 0.87, 0.95).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 4. Assessment of Cervical Invasion
 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
References
 
Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy, with an estimated 34,900 cases newly diagnosed per year (54). The improved survival rate of patients with endometrial cancer over the past 20 years (28% decrease in mortality rate) is mostly the result of earlier diagnosis (2). Further improvement may be achieved through better pretreatment assessment of prognostic factors, which would allow for the optimal choice of primary treatment and decreased morbidity and mortality. For example, if a patient undergoes a simple hysterectomy, but surgical-histologic findings reveal deep myometrial or cervical invasion, the patient will be referred to a gynecologic oncologist and will require a second operation for lymph node dissection.

As well-established "primary treatment in a cancer patient gives the best opportunity for cure" (55), preoperative knowledge of local-regional tumor extent may indirectly affect patient survival. Therefore, gaining knowledge of morphologic prognostic factors of cancer and of their inclusion in treatment planning could be an important step in further improving prognosis. Prognostic factors that influence the choice of treatment are patient factors (age, health), tumor extent (depth of myometrial invasion, cervical invasion, and lymph node invasion), and histologic factors (tumor grade, histologic type, lymphatic vascular space invasion) (2).

Histologic factors are related to depth of myometrial invasion, endocervical extension, and lymph node metastasis. A higher tumor grade correlates with lower survival rates and higher rates of myometrial invasion (eg, the incidence of deep myometrial invasion is about 7% for grade I tumors versus 46% for grade III tumors) (1). For grade II tumors with deep myometrial invasion and for all grade III tumors, the lymph node invasion rate is about 31% for pelvic lymph nodes and 23% for paraaortic lymph nodes (2).

Gross evaluation of myometrial invasion becomes less reliable with increasing tumor grade (gross inspection has 80% reliability vs 94% reliability for frozen-section analysis) (56,57). The 5-year mortality rates of 51% for clear cell carcinoma and of 21% for papillary serous carcinoma are worse than the 6% 5-year mortality rate for the more common adenocarcinomas (58). The worse outcome of these histologic types also correlates with a higher incidence of lymph node metastasis and myometrial invasion (eg, 50% of patients with clinical stage I papillary serous carcinoma have deep myometrial invasion) (59). Invasion of the cervical stroma (FIGO stage IIB) and of the lymph nodes (FIGO stage IIIC) are well-known adverse prognostic factors that are strongly correlated with myometrial invasion and tumor grade (1,60). However, diagnosis of cervical invasion by means of endocervical curettage is unreliable because of false-positive rates of up to 25% and false-negative rates of up to 10% (61).

In 1988, the inadequacies of pretreatment diagnostic assessment of endometrial cancer led to recommendations for routine surgical staging (5). However, since the introduction of surgical staging in 1988, the technology for diagnostic radiology has markedly advanced with the improvement of spatial resolution of CT and with the development of endovaginal US, MR imaging, and MR contrast media. Accurate pretreatment assessment of endometrial cancer at imaging can potentially optimize surgical and nonsurgical treatment. Pretreatment knowledge of myometrial or cervical invasion affects the performance and extent of lymphadenectomy (3,62,63). Presence of cervical invasion alters the type of hysterectomy that is performed (64), and the poor outcome of associated parametrial invasion (65) indicates irradiation, rather than immediate surgery, is the best treatment in these patients (2).

Despite the breadth of information provided with modern imaging methods, no imaging guidelines or algorithms are available for the use of imaging in the pretreatment assessment of endometrial cancer. In part, this is due to the lack of multimodality studies with adequate sample size and statistical power in which state-of-the-art imaging techniques are compared. When a single imaging modality is evaluated, the investigator tends to overestimate its value because of a variety of biases. This meta-analysis was undertaken to address some of the shortcomings in the existing literature.

In our meta-analysis of 10–15 years of literature, we attempted to minimize some of the well-known limitations of meta-analysis. If primary studies suffer from inadequate scientific quality, combining them in a meta-analytic comparison will yield only poor results. We attempted to minimize this problem by applying strict inclusion and exclusion criteria to every study and by taking into account a methodologic quality rating. To avoid confounding due to the use of different thresholds for the diagnosis of myometrial invasion, we used the summary ROC method rather than the pooling method that combines the patient populations to determine a combined value of sensitivity and specificity.

Another potential pitfall of meta-analysis is that differences in patients may preclude application of the results of a meta-analysis to the target population. We attempted to avoid this pitfall by assessing the severity of the disease and by performing a covariate analysis, which demonstrated no differences in results when the FIGO stage distribution of each study population was considered.

By including only published data, we did not exclude publication bias, which tends to cause overestimation of diagnostic performance because of the greater likelihood of publication of positive rather than negative results. Although meta-analysis does not replace large prospective studies, the results from a meta-analysis in which results of smaller trials are combined may not differ significantly from the results of larger prospective trials (13).

Findings of this study showed that, in the evaluation of myometrial invasion, contrast-enhanced MR imaging performed significantly better than nonenhanced MR imaging and US (P < .002) and showed a trend toward better results when compared with CT (P = .18).

Although commonly used in clinical settings, to our knowledge there have not been sufficient published data evaluating the performance of CT in endometrial cancer staging. Due to the lack of published data on helical CT in staging endometrial cancer, the performance of CT may be underestimated in this meta-analysis.

Comparison of US studies that use the transabdominal approach and studies that use the endovaginal approach was not possible because of insufficient data on US studies that use only the transabdominal approach. As 88% of the included US studies combined the transabdominal approach with the endovaginal approach, this combination appeared to represent the recommended standard technique in the published literature. Compared with CT, US has a significantly lower sensitivity for paraaortic and pelvic lymph node detection (66,67).

Recently, a meta-analysis in which the use of MR imaging, CT, and lymphography in patients with cervical cancer was compared showed a trend toward better performance with MR imaging than with CT or lymphography in the diagnosis of pelvic lymphadenopathy (68). Although the meta-analysis included only patients with cervical cancer, these results might still apply to patients with endometrial cancer. Therefore, in patients with a large uterine mass and a resultant higher probability of lymph node metastasis, MR imaging or CT, and not US, should be used as the primary imaging modality. Incomplete data on lymph node status in patients with endometrial cancer precluded meta-analytic comparison.

Although six studies compared contrast-enhanced with nonenhanced MR imaging (10,41,42,44,46,48), the difference in accuracy between these techniques reached statistical significance in only one study (10). This meta-analysis increased the statistical significance (from P = .03 in Yamashita's study [10] to P < .001 in this analysis) and therefore confirmed, with higher confidence, the previously published superiority of contrast-enhanced over nonenhanced MR imaging. Staging of endometrial cancer at MR imaging should, therefore, include the use of intravenous contrast media.

The lack of reported data on the assessment of cervical invasion at CT and US may be related to diagnostic difficulties with these imaging modalities. Results of MR imaging for this indication ranged from 66% to 100% (mean, 86%) for sensitivity; from 92% to 100% (mean, 97%) for specificity; and from 87% to 95% for the CIs for the Q* value.

Among 10 articles that included assessment of cervical invasion at MR imaging, the authors of only one article (49) differentiated cervical stromal invasion (the only cervical prognostic factor) from superficial cervical invasion (not a prognostic factor). The authors demonstrated an increase in sensitivity from 56% to 100% and no change in specificity if only cervical stromal invasion was considered a positive sign of cervical invasion. The meta-analytic results for the assessment of cervical invasion at MR imaging could not reflect this differentiation and might, therefore, underestimate the real sensitivity of MR imaging. If the patient is at high risk for cervical invasion, on the basis of findings at clinical examination, contrast-enhanced MR imaging might represent the appropriate cost-effective solution for evaluating myometrial, cervical, and lymph node involvement.

Although the algorithmic approach to diagnostic tests offers the potential for evidence-based assessment, guidelines need to be adopted. Imaging should be used because it offers an important adjunct to treatment decision making. The choice of the primary imaging modality should be tailored to local expertise; to the patient's pretest probability for myometrial, cervical, or lymph node disease; and to the patient's habitus.

For endometrial cancer staging, the choice of an imaging modality depends on tumor grade, histologic type, and findings at clinical examination.

On the basis of our meta-analysis of imaging findings and well-established prognostic factors that are assessed at endometrial biopsy, endocervical curettage, and clinical examination, the following clinical practice guidelines can be formulated for staging endometrial cancer. (a) No imaging is required for patients with grade I tumors and a nonenlarged uterus at physical examination because the pretest probability of myometrial, cervical, or nodal involvement is low. If results from the physical examination are inconclusive or if there is concomitant pelvic disease, US, CT, or MR imaging can be used at the initial radiologic investigation. (b) Patients with high-grade papillary or clear cell tumors should undergo CT or MR imaging because there is a high pretest probability of nodal involvement. (c) Patients with possible cervical involvement at physical examination or with positive or inconclusive results from endocervical curettage should undergo MR imaging, since this is the only modality that has been shown to accurately depict cervical invasion. (d) In patients who require multifactorial assessment, contrast-enhanced MR imaging is the only modality that can be used to accurately evaluate myometrial, cervical, and nodal involvement.


   Footnotes
 
Abbreviations: FIGO = International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Q* = point on the summary receiver operating characteristic curve where sensitivity and specificity are equal ROC = receiver operating characteristic

Author contributions: Guarantors of integrity of entire study, K.K., H.H.; study concepts, K.K., H.H.; study design, K.K., K.K.Y.; definition of intellectual content, K.K., K.K.Y., H.H.; literature research, K.K., Y.K.; data acquisition, K.K., Y.K.; data analysis, K.K., K.K.Y.; H.H., M.R.S., Y.L.; statistical analysis, M.R.S.; manuscript preparation, K.K.; manuscript editing, H.H., C.B.P., K.K.Y.; manuscript review, K.K.Y., H.H., M.R.S.


   References
TOP
 Abstract
 Introduction
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 

  1. Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, et al. Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63:825-832.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Morrow CP, Curtin JP, Townsend DG. Tumors of the endometrium. In: Morrow CP, Curtin JP, eds. Synopsis of gynecologic oncology. 5th ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone, 1998; 151-185.
  3. Larson DM, Connor GP, Broste SK, Krawisz BR, Johnson KK. Prognostic significance of gross myometrial invasion with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88:394-398.[Abstract]
  4. Kodama S, Kase H, Tanaka K, Matsui K. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in patients with endometrial cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1996; 53:23-30.[Medline]
  5. Shepherd JH. Revised FIGO staging for gynaecological cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96:889-892[Erratum: Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99:440.].[Medline]
  6. Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 1987; 60:2035-2041.[Medline]
  7. Takahashi K, Yoshioka M, Kosuge H, et al. The accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating the extent of endometrial carcinoma. Nippon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 1995; 47:647-654[Japanese].[Medline]
  8. 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; 17:641-647.[Medline]
  9. DelMaschio A, Vanzulli A, Sironi S, et al. Estimating the depth of myometrial involvement by endometrial carcinoma: efficacy of transvaginal sonography vs MR imaging. AJR 1993; 160:533-538.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Yamashita Y, Mizutani H, Torashima M, et al. Assessment of myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: transvaginal sonography vs contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJR 1993; 161:595-599.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Kim SH, Kim HD, Song YS, Kang SB, Lee HP. Detection of deep myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma: comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, CT, and MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1995; 19:766-772.[Medline]
  12. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120:667-676.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH, et al. Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare?. JAMA 1996; 276:1332-1338.[Abstract]
  14. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 1993; 12:1293-1316.[Medline]
  15. Midget AS, Stoxil TA, Littenberg B. A meta-analytic method for summarizing diagnostic test performances: receiver-operating-characteristic-summary point estimates. Med Decis Making 1993; 13:253-257.
  16. Haldane JB. The estimation and significance of the logarithm of a ratio of frequencies. Ann Hum Genet 1955; 20:309-314.
  17. Venables WN, Ripley BD. Robust statistics In: Venable WR, Ripley BD. Modern applied statistics with S-Plus. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer, 1997; 247-266.
  18. Hasami K, Matsuzawa M, Chen HF, Takahashi M, Sakura M. Computed tomography in the evaluation and treatment of endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 1982; 50:904-908.[Medline]
  19. Takahashi K. Role of x-ray CT in diagnosis and therapy of endometrial carcinoma. Nippon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 1983; 35:683-690[Japanese].[Medline]
  20. Dore R, Moro G, D'Andrea F, La Fianza A, Franchi M, Bolis PF. CT evaluation of myometrium invasion in endometrial carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1987; 11:282-289.[Medline]
  21. Fleischer AC, Dudley BS, Entman SS, Baxter JW, Kalemeris GC, James AE, Jr. Myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: sonographic assessment. Radiology 1987; 162:307-310.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Cacciatore B, Lehtovirta P, Wahlstrom T, Ylostalo P. Preoperative sonographic evaluation of endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160:133-137.[Medline]
  23. Cacciatore B, Lehtovirta P, Wahlstrom T, Ylanen K, Ylostalo P. Contribution of vaginal scanning to sonographic evaluation of endometrial cancer invasion. Acta Oncol 1989; 28:585-588.[Medline]
  24. Gordon AN, Fleischer AC, Reed GW. Depth of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: preoperative assessment by transvaginal ultrasonography. Gynecol Oncol 1990; 39:321-327.[Medline]
  25. Conte M, Guariglia L, Benedetti Panici P, Scambia G, Cento R, Mancuso S. Transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1990; 29:224-226.[Medline]
  26. Sahakian V, Syrop C, Turner D. Endometrial carcinoma: transvaginal ultrasonography prediction of depth of myometrial invasion. Gynecol Oncol 1991; 43:217-219.[Medline]
  27. Garzetti GG, Ciavattini A, Cignitti M, et al. Transvaginal echography in the evaluation of the grade of myometrial invasion in locally advanced endometrial carcinoma. Ann Ostet Ginecol Med Perinat 1992; 113:114-118[Italian].[Medline]
  28. Shipley CF, III, Smith ST, Dennis EJ, III, Nelson GH. Evaluation of pretreatment transvaginal ultrasonography in the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167:406-411.[Medline]
  29. Artner A, Bosze P, Gonda G. The value of ultrasound in preoperative assessment of the myometrial and cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 54:147-151.[Medline]
  30. Lehtovirta P, Cacciatore B, Ylostalo P. Serum CA 125 levels and sonography in the pre-operative assessment of myometrial invasion of endometrial cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101:532-535.[Medline]
  31. Prompeler HJ, Madjar H, du Bois A, et al. Transvaginal sonography of myometrial invasion depth in endometrial cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994; 73:343-346.[Medline]
  32. Kochli OR, Bajka M, Schar G, Schmidt D, Haller U. Measuring the depth of invasion of endometrial carcinoma: preoperative transvaginal ultrasound and correlation with intraoperative and histopathologic findings—a prospective study. Ultraschall Med 1995; 16:8-11[German].[Medline]
  33. Teefey SA, Stahl JA, Middleton WD, et al. Local staging of endometrial carcinoma: comparison of transvaginal and intraoperative sonography and gross visual inspection. AJR 1996; 166:547-552.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Hricak H, Stern JL, Fisher MR, Shapeero LG, Winkler ML, Lacey CG. Endometrial carcinoma staging by MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 162:297-305.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Yazigi R, Cohen J, Munoz AK, Sandstad J. Magnetic resonance imaging determination of myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 34:94-97.[Medline]
  36. Harrill CD, Kopecky KK, Weaver SR, Sutton GP. Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of clinical stage I endometrial carcinoma. Comput Med Imaging Graph 1990; 14:191-195.[Medline]
  37. Belloni C, Vigano R, del Maschio A, Sironi S, Taccagni GL, Vignali M. Magnetic resonance imaging in endometrial carcinoma staging. Gynecol Oncol 1990; 37:172-177.[Medline]
  38. Chen SS, Rumancik WM, Spiegel G. Magnetic resonance imaging in stage I endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:274-277.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Karube M. Role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluation of the extension of endometrial carcinoma. Nippon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 1991; 43:101-108[Japanese].[Medline]
  40. Hricak H, Rubinstein LV, Gherman GM, Karstaedt N. MR imaging evaluation of endometrial carcinoma: results of an NCI cooperative study. Radiology 1991; 179:829-832.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Hricak H, Hamm B, Semelka RC, et al. Carcinoma of the uterus: use of gadopentetate dimeglumine in MR imaging. Radiology 1991; 181:95-106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Hirano Y, Kubo K, Hirai Y, et al. Preliminary experience with gadolinium-enhanced dynamic MR imaging for uterine neoplasms. RadioGraphics 1992; 12:243-256.[Abstract]
  43. Sironi S, Taccagni G, Garancini P, Belloni C, DelMaschio A. Myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: assessment by MR imaging. AJR 1992; 158:565-569.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Ito K, Matsumoto T, Nakada T, Nakanishi T, Fujita N, Yamashita H. Assessing myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma with dynamic MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994; 18:77-86.[Medline]
  45. Atsukawa H, Sasaki H, Tada S. A multivariate analysis of assessment of myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma by magnetic resonance imaging. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 54:298-306.[Medline]
  46. Joja I, Asakawa M, Asakawa T, et al. Endometrial carcinoma: dynamic MRI with turbo-FLASH technique. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996; 20:878-887.[Medline]
  47. Seki H, Kimura M, Sakai K. Myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma: assessment with dynamic MR and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. Clin Radiol 1997; 52:18-23.[Medline]
  48. Sironi S, Colombo E, Villa G, et al. Myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: assessment with plain and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1992; 185:207-212.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Minderhoud-Bassie W, Treurniet FE, Koops W, Chadha-Ajwani S, Hage JC, Huikeshoven FJ. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in endometrial carcinoma: preoperative estimation of depth of myometrial invasion. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1995; 74:827-831.[Medline]
  50. Kaketa M, Takemoto O, Akamine M, Iwasaki H, Takamizawa H. MRI in evaluation of myometrial invasion and staging of endometrial carcinoma. Nippon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 1989; 41:859-866[Japanese].[Medline]
  51. Posniak HV, Olson MC, Dudiak CM, et al. MR imaging of uterine carcinoma: correlation with clinical and pathologic findings. RadioGraphics 1990; 10:15-27.[Abstract]
  52. Murakami T, Kurachi H, Nakamura H, et al. Cervical invasion of endometrial carcinoma: evaluation by parasagittal MR imaging. Acta Radiol 1995; 36:248-253.[Medline]
  53. Matsushita H, Kodama S, Kase H, Kurata H, Tanaka K. Usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging in the determination of cervical involvement in endometrial cancer. Nippon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 1996; 48:821-826[Japanese].[Medline]
  54. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society, 1997.
  55. Rutledge FN, Freedman RS, Gershenson DM. Gynecologic cancer: diagnosis and treatment strategies Austin, Tex: University of Texas Press, 1987; 3.
  56. Noumoff JS, Menzin A, Mikuta J, Lusk EJ, Morgan M, LiVolsi VA. The ability to evaluate prognostic variables on frozen section in hysterectomies performed for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1991; 42:202-208.[Medline]
  57. Goff BA, Rice LW. Assessment of depth of myometrial invasion in endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1990; 38:46-48.[Medline]
  58. Christopherson WM, Connelly PJ, Alberhasky RC. Carcinoma of the endometrium. V. An analysis of prognosticators in patients with favorable subtypes and stage I disease. Cancer 1983; 51:1705-1709.[Medline]
  59. 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 variables. Gynecol Oncol 1982; 13:373-392.[Medline]
  60. Kinsella TJ, Bloomer WD, Lavin PT, Knapp RC. Stage II endometrial carcinoma: 10-year follow-up of combined radiation and surgical treatment. Gynecol Oncol 1980; 10:290-297.[Medline]
  61. Chen SS, Lee L. Reappraisal of endocervical curettage in predicting cervical involvement by endometrial carcinoma. J Reprod Med 1986; 31:50-52.[Medline]
  62. Eltabbakh GH, Piver MS, Hempling RE, Shin KH. Excellent long-term survival and absence of vaginal recurrences in 332 patients with low-risk stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma treated with hysterectomy and vaginal brachytherapy without formal staging lymph node sampling: report of a prospective trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 38:373-380.[Medline]
  63. Yokoyama Y, Maruyama H, Sato S, Saito Y. Indispensability of pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancers. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 64:411-417.[Medline]
  64. Rubin SC, Hoskins WJ, Saigo PE, et al. Management of endometrial adenocarcinoma with cervical involvement. Gynecol Oncol 1992; 45:294-298.[Medline]
  65. Yura Y, Tauchi K, Koshiyama M, et al. Parametrial involvement in endometrial carcinomas: its incidence and correlation with other histological parameters. Gynecol Oncol 1996; 63:114-119.[Medline]
  66. Mamsen A, Ledertoug S, Horlyck A, et al. The possible role of ultrasound in early cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1995; 56:187-190.[Medline]
  67. Munker R, Stengel A, Stabler A, Hiller E, Brehm G. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and computed tomography in the staging of Hodgkin's disease: verification by laparotomy in 100 cases. Cancer 1995; 76:1460-1466.[Medline]
  68. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, Subak L, Segal MR. Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1997; 278:1096-1101.[Abstract]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. Torricelli, S. Ferraresi, F. Fiocchi, G. Ligabue, V. M. Jasonni, I. Di Monte, and F. Rivasi
3-T MRI in the Preoperative Evaluation of Depth of Myometrial Infiltration in Endometrial Cancer
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 489 - 495.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E. Sala, S. Wakely, E. Senior, and D. Lomas
MRI of Malignant Neoplasms of the Uterine Corpus and Cervix
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2007; 188(6): 1577 - 1587.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
A. Sarna, B. G. Coleman, S. K. Srinivas, and D. A. Torigian
Computed Tomographic and Ultrasonographic Findings of Endometrial Carcinoma Appearing as a Fungating Inguinal Mass
J. Ultrasound Med., November 1, 2005; 24(11): 1579 - 1582.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
M. M. Leitao Jr and D. S. Chi
Fertility-Sparing Options for Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies
Oncologist, September 1, 2005; 10(8): 613 - 622.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
R. Manfredi, P. Mirk, G. Maresca, P. A. Margariti, A. Testa, G. F. Zannoni, D. Giordano, G. Scambia, and P. Marano
Local-Regional Staging of Endometrial Carcinoma: Role of MR Imaging in Surgical Planning
Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 372 - 378.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
K. Fong, P. Causer, M. Atri, A. Lytwyn, and R. Kung
Transvaginal US and Hysterosonography in Postmenopausal Women with Breast Cancer Receiving Tamoxifen: Correlation with Hysteroscopy and Pathologic Study
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2003; 23(1): 137 - 150.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
L. A. Hardesty, J. H. Sumkin, C. Hakim, C. Johns, and M. Nath
The Ability of Helical CT to Preoperatively Stage Endometrial Carcinoma
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 603 - 606.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
K. A. Frei, K. Kinkel, H. M. Bonél, Y. Lu, C. Zaloudek, and H. Hricak
Prediction of Deep Myometrial Invasion in Patients with Endometrial Cancer: Clinical Utility of Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging-A Meta-analysis and Bayesian Analysis
Radiology, August 1, 2000; 216(2): 444 - 449.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kinkel, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hricak, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kinkel, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hricak, H.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE