Use of transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of early-stage cervical cancer

Czech version

Authors: D. Fischerová ¹; D. Cibula ¹; H. Štěňhová ²; H. Vondřichová ²; Michal Zikán ¹; P. Freitag ¹; J. Sláma ¹; D. Pavlišta ¹; I. Pinkavová ¹; P. Dundr ³
Authors‘ workplace: Onkogynekologické centrum, Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika VFN a 1. LF UK, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. A. Martan, DrSc. ¹; Diagnostické centrum Mediscan, vedoucí lékařka magnetické rezonance MUDr. H. Štěňhová ²; Ústav patologie VFN a 1. LF UK, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. C. Povýšil, DrSc. ³
Published in: Ceska Gynekol 2009; 74(5): 323-329

Overview

Objective:
The goal of this study was to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) - a standard method - and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in the staging and determination of significant prognostic parameters in early-stage cervical cancer. The following prognostic parameters were evaluated: identification of residual tumor in the cervix after cone-biopsy, tumor volume, and early parametrial infiltration.

Design:
Prospective study.

Setting:
Oncogynecological Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, General Faculty Hospital of Charles University, Prague.

Methods:
Patients referred to Oncogynecological Center from January 2004 to February 2006, in whom early-stage cervical cancer (T1a1-T2a) was diagnosed by clinical examination, were prospectivelly enrolled in the study. Only those patients who were examined by both MRI and TRUS with following surgical treatment were included. Imaging results were compared with pathology findings.

Results:
Data from 95 patients were evaluated. The accuracy of tumor detection in 95 patients was 93.7% for TRUS and 83.2% for MRI (P ≤ 0.006). In small tumors (≤ 1cm³), the accuracy of tumor detection by TRUS was 90.5% and 81.1% by MRI (P≤0.049). The accuracy of parametrial infiltration detection by TRUS and MRI was 98.9% and 94.7%, respectively (P ≤ 0.219). The accuracy was not influenced by body mass index values.

Conclusion:
Our results show TRUS achieving comparable or even higher accuracy than the more commonly used MRI in staging of early-stage cervical cancer.

Key words:
cervical cancer, MRI, staging, transrectal ultrasound

Sources

1. Alcázar, JL., Castillo, G., Jurado, M. Intratumoral blood flow in cervical cancer as assessed by transvaginal color Doppler ultrasonography: correlation with tumor chracteristics. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2003, 13, p. 510-514.

2. Amendola, MA, a kol. Utilization of diagnostic studies in the pretreatment evaluation of invasive cervical cancer in the United States: results of Intergroup Protocol ACRIN 6651/GOG 183. J Clin Oncol, 2005, 23, p. 7454-7459.

3. Aoki, S., a kol. Parametrial invasion of uterin cervical cancer assessed by transrectal ultrasonography: preliminary report. Gynecol Oncol, 1990, 36, p. 82-89.

4. Benedet, JL., Bender, H., Jones, H., a kol. FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Inter J Gynecol Obstet, 2000, 70, p. 207-312.

5. Bipat, S., Glas, A., Van der Velden, J., et al. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol, 2003, 91, p. 59-66.

6. Burgetová, A., Fischerova, D. Moderní zobrazovací metody v gynekologii. Mod Gynek Porod, 2007, 4, s. 604-613.

7. Carter, JR. Cervical tumor characterization by transvaginal color flow Doppler ultrasound. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 1999, 9, p. 279-284.

8. Cendrowski, K., Sawicky, W., Spiewankiewicz, B., Stelmachow, J. The importance of fine needle aspiration biopsy and sonographic evaluation of parametria in cervical cancer. Eur J Gynecol Oncol, 2003, 5, p. 413-416.

9. Clopper, C., Pearson, S. The use of confidence of fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika, 1934, 26, p. 404-413.

10. Cobby, M., Browning, J., Jones, A., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and endosonography in the local staging of carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Radiol, 1990, 63, p. 673-679.

11. Fischerová, D. Patologie děložního hrdla v ultrazvukovém obraze. Mod Gynek Porod, 2007, 4, s. 721-731.

12. Fuchsjäger, MH., Maier, AG., Schima, W., et al. Comparison of transrectal sonography and double-contrast MR imaging when staging rectal cancer. Am J Roentgenol, 2003, 181, p. 421-427.

13. Gitsch, G., a kol. Cervical cancer: the diagnostic value of rectosonography for the judgment of parametrial invasion in regard of inflammatory stroma reaction. Br J Obstet Gynecol, 1993, 100, p. 696-697.

14. Hata, K., Makihara, T., Hata, T., et al. Transvaginal color Doppler imaging for hemodynamic assessment of reproductive tract tumors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 1991, 36, p. 301–308.

15. Havrilesky, LJ. FDG-PET for management of cervical and ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2005, 97, p. 183-191.

16. Hricak, H., Lacey, CG., Sandles, LG., et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: Comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology, 1988, 166, p. 623-631.

17. Huang, WC., et al. Ultrasonographic characteristics and cystoscopis correlates of bladder wall invasion by endophytic cervical cancer. UOG, 2006, 27, p. 680-686.

18. Innocenti, P., Pulli, F., Savino, L., et al. Staging of cervical cancer: reliability of transrectal US. Radiology, 1992, 185, p. 201-205.

19. Iwamoto, J., et al. Transvaginal ultrasonographic diagnosis of bladder – wall invasion in patients with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol, 1994, 83, p. 217-219.

20. Leibovici, D. Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for detection of rectal wall invasion by prostata cancer. Prostate, 2005, 62, p. 101-104.

21. Mc Nemar, Q. Note of sampling error of the differences between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometriac, 1947, 12, p. 153-154.

22. Meloun, M., Militky, J,, Hill, M ,et al. Crucial problems in regression modelling and their solutions. Analyst, 2002, 127, p. 433-450.

23. Mitchell, DG., Snyder, B., Coakley, F., et al. Early invasive cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 Intergroup Study. J Clin Oncol, 2006, 24, p. 5687-5694.

24. Nakamoto, Y., a kol. Positron emission tomography application for gynecologic tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2005, 15, p. 701-709.

25. Sironi, S., Zanello, A., Radighiero, MG., et al. Invasive carcinoma of the cervix uteri (stage IB-IIB). Comparison of CT and MR for the assessement of the parametrium. Radio Med, 1991, 81, p. 671-677.

26. Subak, LL., Hricak, H., Powell, B., et al. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for peroperative staging. Obstet Gynecol, 1995, 86, p. 43-50.

27. Tepper, R., Zalel, Y., Altaras, M., et al. Transvaginal color Doppler ultrasound in the assessment of invasive cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncolm 1996, 60, p. 26–29.

28. Testa, AC., Ferrandina, G., Distefano, M., et al. Color Doppler velocimetry and three-dimensional color power angiography of cervical carcinoma.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2004, 24, p. 445–452.

29. Van Nagell, JR., Roddick, JW., Lowin, DM. The staging of cervical cancer: inevitable discrepancies between clinical and pathological findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1997, 110, p. 973.

30. Wu, YC., Yuan, CC., Hung, JH., et al. Power Doppler angiographic appearance and blood flow velocity waveforms in invasive cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol, 2000, 79, p. 181–186.

31. Zaritzky, D., Blake, D., Willard, J., et al. Transrectal ultrasonography in the evaluation of cervical carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol, 1979, 53, p. 105-108.