Diagnostic Performance of Preoperative Imaging in Endometrial Cancer
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Patient Characteristics
3.2. Clinically and Pathologically Confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Stages
3.3. Uterine Myometrial and Cervical Stromal Invasion
3.4. Adnexal Metastasis and Vaginal Invasion
3.5. Clinically and Pathologically Confirmed T Classification
3.6. Pelvic Lymph Node Metastasis
3.7. Para-Aortic Lymph Node Metastasis
4. Discussion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cancer Statistics; Cancer Information Service, National Cancer Center, National Cancer Registry, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare: Tokyo, Japan.
- Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shigeta, S.; Nagase, S.; Mikami, M.; Ikeda, M.; Shida, M.; Sakaguchi, I.; Ushioda, N.; Takahashi, F.; Yamagami, W.; Yaegashi, N.; et al. Assessing the effect of guideline introduction on clinical practice and outcome in patients with endometrial cancer in Japan: A project of the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO) guideline evaluation committee. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017, 28, e76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yamagami, W.; Mikami, M.; Nagase, S.; Tabata, T.; Kobayashi, Y.; Kaneuchi, M.; Kobayashi, H.; Yamada, H.; Hasegawa, K.; Fujiwara, H.; et al. Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology 2018 guidelines for treatment of uterine body neoplasms. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020, 31, e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Walker, J.L.; Piedmonte, M.R.; Spirtos, N.M.; Eisenkop, S.M.; Schlaerth, J.B.; Mannel, R.S.; Barakat, R.; Pearl, M.L.; Sharma, S.K. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 695–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ran, L.; Jin, J.; Xu, Y.; Bu, Y.; Song, F. Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e108361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Japan Radiological Society. Diagnostic Imaging Guidelines; Japan Radiological Society: Tokyo, Japan, 2021. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Yamashita, Y.; Murayama, S.; Okada, M.; Watanabe, Y.; Kataoka, M.; Kaji, Y.; Imamura, K.; Takehara, Y.; Hayashi, H.; Ohno, K.; et al. The essence of the Japan Radiological Society/Japanese College of Radiology Imaging Guideline. Jpn. J. Radiol. 2016, 34, 43–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bokhman, J.V. Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 1983, 15, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. WHO Classification of Tumors, 5th ed.; Female Genital Tumors; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
- Murali, R.; Davidson, B.; Fadare, O.; Carlson, J.A.; Crum, C.P.; Gilks, C.B.; Irving, J.A.; Malpica, A.; Matias-Guiu, X.; McCluggage, W.G.; et al. High-grade endometrial carcinomas: Morphologic and immunohistochemical features, diagnostic challenges and recommendations. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2019, 38 (Suppl. S1), S40–S63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhauer, E.A.; Therasse, P.; Bogaerts, J.; Schwartz, L.H.; Sargent, D.; Ford, R.; Dancey, J.; Arbuck, S.; Gwyther, S.; Mooney, M.; et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 2009, 45, 228–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creasman, W. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2009, 105, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scoutt, L.M.; McCarthy, S.M.; Flynn, S.D.; Lange, R.C.; Long, F.; Smith, R.C.; Chambers, S.K.; Kohorn, E.; Schwartz, P.; Chambers, J.T. Clinical stage I endometrial carcinoma: Pitfalls in preoperative assessment with MR imaging. Work in progress. Radiology 1995, 194, 567–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sala, E.; Crawford, R.; Senior, E.; Shaw, A.; Simcock, B.; Vrotsou, K.; Palmer, C.; Rajan, P.; Joubert, I.; Lomas, D. Added value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in predicting advanced stage disease in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2009, 19, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chung, H.H.; Kang, S.B.; Cho, J.Y.; Kim, J.W.; Park, N.H.; Song, Y.S.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, H.P. Accuracy of MR imaging for the prediction of myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 2007, 104, 654–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foti, P.V.; Farina, R.; Coronella, M.; Ruggeri, C.; Palmucci, S.; Montana, A.; Milone, P.; Zarbo, G.; Caltabiano, R.; Lanzafame, S.; et al. Endometrial carcinoma: MR staging and causes of error. Radiol. Med. 2013, 118, 487–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alcázar, J.L.; Gastón, B.; Navarro, B.; Salas, R.; Aranda, J.; Guerriero, S. Transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment of myometrial infiltration in patients with endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017, 28, e86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bi, Q.; Chen, Y.; Wu, K.; Wang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, B.; Du, J. The diagnostic value of MRI for preoperative staging in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis. Acad. Radiol. 2020, 27, 960–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sato, S.; Itamochi, H.; Shimada, M.; Fujii, S.; Naniwa, J.; Uegaki, K.; Sato, S.; Nonaka, M.; Ogawa, T.; Kigawa, J. Preoperative and intraoperative assessments of depth of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2009, 19, 884–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rei, M.; Costa-Santos, C.; Bernardes, J.; Costa, A. Preoperative staging of uterine cancer: Can transvaginal ultrasonography play a role? Front. Oncol. 2023, 13, 1089105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NCCN National Comprehensive Cancer Network (US). NCCN National Comprehensive Cancer Network (US). NCCN clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. In Uterine Neoplasmsm; NCCN: Fort Washington, PA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Selman, T.J.; Mann, C.H.; Zamora, J.; Khan, K.S. A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer. BMC Womens Health 2008, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connor, J.P.; Andrews, J.I.; Anderson, B.; Buller, R.E. Computed tomography in endometrial carcinoma. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000, 95, 692–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atri, M.; Zhang, Z.; Dehdashti, F.; Lee, S.I.; Marques, H.; Ali, S.; Koh, W.J.; Mannel, R.S.; DiSilvestro, P.; King, S.A.; et al. Utility of PET/CT to evaluate retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis in high-risk endometrial cancer: Results of ACRIN 6671/GOG 0233 trial. Radiology 2017, 283, 450–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- López-González, E.; Rodriguez-Jiménez, A.; Gómez-Salgado, J.; Daza-Manzano, C.; Rojas-Luna, J.A.; Alvarez, R.M. Role of tumor volume in endometrial cancer: An imaging analysis and prognosis significance. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2023; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chikazawa, K.; Netsu, S.; Imai, K.; Kimura, A.; Kuwata, T.; Konno, R. Volume index is a Risk Factor for Recurrence Even in Patients with Clinical Stage IA Endometrial Cancer Undergoing either laparotomy or Laparoscopy: A Retrospective Study. Gynecol. Minim. Invasive Ther. 2022, 11, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ambrosio, M.; Raffone, A.; Alletto, A.; Cini, C.; Filipponi, F.; Neola, D.; Fabbri, M.; Arena, A.; Raimondo, D.; Salucci, P.; et al. Is preoperative ultrasound tumor size a prognostic factor in endometrial carcinoma patients? Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 993629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonsen, S.L.; Jensen, L.N.; Loft, A.; Berthelsen, A.K.; Costa, J.; Tabor, A.; Qvist, I.; Hansen, M.R.; Fisker, R.; Andersen, E.S.; et al. MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer—A multicenter prospective comparative study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013, 128, 300–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kitajima, K.; Murakami, K.; Yamasaki, E.; Fukasawa, I.; Inaba, N.; Kaji, Y.; Sugimura, K. Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008, 190, 1652–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Inubashiri, E.; Hata, K.; Kanenishi, K.; Shiota, A.; Ohno, M.; Yamamoto, Y.; Nishiyama, Y.; Ohkawa, M.; Hata, T. Positron emission tomography with the glucose analog [F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose for evaluating pelvic lymph node metastasis in uterine corpus cancer: Comparison with CT and MRI findings. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2009, 35, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitajima, K.; Yamasaki, E.; Kaji, Y.; Murakami, K.; Sugimura, K. Comparison of DWI and PET/CT in evaluation of lymph node metastasis in uterine cancer. World J. Radiol. 2012, 4, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitajima, K.; Murakami, K.; Yamasaki, E.; Kaji, Y.; Sugimura, K. Accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with uterine cancer. Eur. Radiol. 2009, 19, 1529–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atri, M.; Zhang, Z.; Dehdashti, F.; Lee, S.I.; Ali, S.; Marques, H.; Koh, W.J.; Moore, K.; Landrum, L.; Kim, J.W.; et al. Utility of PET-CT to evaluate retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis in advanced cervical cancer: Results of ACRIN6671/GOG0233 trial. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 142, 413–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hynninen, J.; Kemppainen, J.; Lavonius, M.; Virtanen, J.; Matomäki, J.; Oksa, S.; Carpén, O.; Grénman, S.; Seppänen, M.; Auranen, A. A prospective comparison of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced CT for pretreatment imaging of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013, 131, 389–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambin, P.; Leijenaar, R.T.H.; Deist, T.M.; Peerlings, J.; de Jong, E.E.C.; van Timmeren, J.V.; Sanduleanu, S.; Larue, R.T.H.M.; Even, A.J.G.; Jochems, A.; et al. Radiomics: The bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 14, 749–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van Timmeren, J.E.V.; Cester, D.; Tanadini-Lang, S.; Alkadhi, H.; Baessler, B. Radiomics in medical imaging-“how-to” guide and critical reflection. Insights Imaging 2020, 11, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Di Donato, V.; Kontopantelis, E.; Cuccu, I.; Sgamba, L.; Golia D’Augè, T.; Pernazza, A.; Della Rocca, C.; Manganaro, L.; Catalano, C.; Perniola, G.; et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-radiomics in endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2023, 33, 1070–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, X.F.; Yan, B.C.; Li, Y.; Ma, F.H.; Qiang, J.W. Radiomics nomogram in assisting lymphadenectomy decisions by predicting lymph node metastasis in early-stage endometrial cancer. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 894918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bo, J.; Jia, H.; Zhang, Y.; Fu, B.; Jiang, X.; Chen, Y.; Shi, B.; Fang, X.; Dong, J. Preoperative Prediction Value of Pelvic Lymph Node Metastasis of Endometrial Cancer: Combining of ADC Value and Radiomics Features of the Primary Lesion and Clinical Parameters. J. Oncol. 2022, 2022, 3335048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.C.; Li, Y.; Ma, F.H.; Zhang, G.F.; Feng, F.; Sun, M.H.; Lin, G.W.; Qiang, J.W. Radiologists with MRI-based radiomics aids to predict the pelvic lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: A multicenter study. Eur. Radiol. 2021, 31, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Median (Range) | ||
Age | 56.5 (21–77) | |
No. of Patients | % | |
FIGO 2008 stage | ||
IA | 280 | 59.1 |
IB | 76 | 16 |
II | 28 | 5.9 |
IIIA | 18 | 3.8 |
IIIB | 5 | 1.1 |
IIIC1 | 25 | 5.3 |
IIIC2 | 22 | 4.6 |
IVA | 1 | 0.2 |
IVB | 19 | 4 |
Histology | ||
Endometrioid grades 1–2 | 317 | 66.9 |
Endometrioid grade 3 | 53 | 11.2 |
Mucinous | 3 | 0.6 |
Serous | 43 | 9.1 |
Clear cell | 12 | 2.5 |
Mixed | 28 | 5.9 |
Carcinosarcoma | 16 | 3.4 |
Undifferentiated or dedifferentiated | 2 | 0.4 |
Surgical approach | ||
Laparotomy | 317 | 66.9 |
Laparoscopy or robot-assisted surgery | 157 | 33.1 |
Lymphadenectomy | ||
PLN | 205 | 43.2 |
PLN and PALN | 215 | 45.4 |
Biopsy | 54 | 11.4 |
Overdiagnosed | Concordant | Underdiagnosed | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FIGO 2008 Stage | No. of Patients | (%) | No. of Patients | (%) | No. of Patients | (%) |
IA | NA | NA | 247 | (80.2) | 61 | (19.8) |
IB | 23 | (26.1) | 41 | (46.6) | 24 | (27.3) |
II | 8 | (24.2) | 19 | (57.6) | 6 | (18.2) |
IIIA | 1 | (8.3) | 6 | (50.0) | 5 | (41.7) |
IIIB | 0 | (0) | 2 | (100) | 0 | (0) |
IIIC1 | 4 | (23.5) | 7 | (41.2) | 6 | (35.3) |
IIIC2 | 1 | (11.1) | 7 | (77.8) | 1 | (11.1) |
IVA | 0 | (0) | 0 | (0) | 0 | (0) |
IVB | 2 | (40.0) | 3 | (60.0) | NA | NA |
Total | 39 | (8.2) | 332 | (70.0) | 103 | (21.7) |
All Patients | |||
Pathological diagnosis | |||
Preoperative diagnosis | Positive | Negative | |
Positive | 99 | 37 | PPV |
72.8% | |||
Negative | 52 | 286 | NPV |
84.6% | |||
Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
65.6% | 88.5% | 81.2% | |
Low-Grade Histology | |||
Pathological diagnosis | |||
Preoperative diagnosis | Positive | Negative | |
Positive | 44 | 26 | PPV |
62.9% | |||
Negative | 26 | 224 | NPV |
89.6% | |||
Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
62.9% | 89.6% | 83.8% | |
High-Grade Histology | |||
Pathological diagnosis | |||
Preoperative diagnosis | Positive | Negative | |
Positive | 55 | 11 | PPV |
83.3% | |||
Negative | 26 | 62 | NPV |
70.5% | |||
Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
67.9% | 84.9% | 76.0% | |
Tumor without the Lateral Angle of the Uterus | |||
Pathological diagnosis | |||
Preoperative diagnosis | Positive | Negative | |
Positive | 45 | 17 | PPV |
72.6% | |||
Negative | 23 | 222 | NPV |
90.6% | |||
Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
66.2% | 92.9% | 87.0% | |
Tumor Located at the Lateral Angle of the Uterus | |||
Pathological diagnosis | |||
Preoperative diagnosis | Positive | Negative | |
Positive | 54 | 20 | PPV |
73.0% | |||
Negative | 29 | 64 | NPV |
68.8% | |||
Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
65.1% | 76.2% | 70.7% | |
Leiomyoma and/or Adenomyosis Absent | |||
Pathological diagnosis | |||
Preoperative diagnosis | Positive | Negative | |
Positive | 62 | 18 | PPV |
77.5% | |||
Negative | 31 | 187 | NPV |
85.8% | |||
Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
66.7% | 91.2% | 83.6% | |
Leiomyoma and/or Adenomyosis Present | |||
Deep myometrial invasion | Pathological diagnosis | ||
Preoperative diagnosis | Positive | Negative | |
Positive | 37 | 19 | PPV |
66.1% | |||
Negative | 21 | 99 | NPV |
82.5% | |||
Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
63.8% | 83.9% | 77.3% |
Pathological Diagnosis | |||
---|---|---|---|
Preoperative Diagnosis | Positive | Negative | |
Positive | 18 | 6 | PPV |
75.0% | |||
Negative | 26 | 370 | NPV |
93.4% | |||
Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
40.9% | 98.4% | 92.4% |
Pathological Diagnosis | |||
---|---|---|---|
Preoperative Diagnosis | Positive | Negative | |
Positive | 10 | 1 | PPV |
90.9% | |||
Negative | 17 | 187 | NPV |
91.7% | |||
Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
37.0% | 99.5% | 91.6% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hashimoto, C.; Shigeta, S.; Shimada, M.; Shibuya, Y.; Ishibashi, M.; Kageyama, S.; Sato, T.; Tokunaga, H.; Takase, K.; Yaegashi, N. Diagnostic Performance of Preoperative Imaging in Endometrial Cancer. Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30, 8233-8244. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30090597
Hashimoto C, Shigeta S, Shimada M, Shibuya Y, Ishibashi M, Kageyama S, Sato T, Tokunaga H, Takase K, Yaegashi N. Diagnostic Performance of Preoperative Imaging in Endometrial Cancer. Current Oncology. 2023; 30(9):8233-8244. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30090597
Chicago/Turabian StyleHashimoto, Chiaki, Shogo Shigeta, Muneaki Shimada, Yusuke Shibuya, Masumi Ishibashi, Sakiko Kageyama, Tomomi Sato, Hideki Tokunaga, Kei Takase, and Nobuo Yaegashi. 2023. "Diagnostic Performance of Preoperative Imaging in Endometrial Cancer" Current Oncology 30, no. 9: 8233-8244. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30090597
APA StyleHashimoto, C., Shigeta, S., Shimada, M., Shibuya, Y., Ishibashi, M., Kageyama, S., Sato, T., Tokunaga, H., Takase, K., & Yaegashi, N. (2023). Diagnostic Performance of Preoperative Imaging in Endometrial Cancer. Current Oncology, 30(9), 8233-8244. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30090597