Comparison of ultrasound and MRI informativeness for detection and treatment monitoring of cervical cancer metastases in the vagina
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32471/exp-oncology.2312-8852.vol-43-no-4.16971Keywords:
MRI, recurrence of cervical cancer in the vagina, ultrasoundAbstract
Summary. Aim: To assess ultrasound (US) method informativeness in the recurrence detection and treatment monitoring of patients with cervical cancer metastases in the vagina via comparing the US and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. Materials and Methods: 42 patients with recurrence of cervical cancer were examined by transvaginal US and MRI. Data on radiation diagnostics of cervical cancer metastasis in the vagina were compared with pathomorphological data. US and MRI data on the metastatic tumors size were compared. Results: The diagnostic efficiency of US and MRI for recurrence detection was determined. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of US were 92.8; 93.3 and 93.3%, respectively, and of MRI — 95.2; 96.6 and 95.8%, respectively. The informativeness of MRI was higher than US in cervical cancer recurrences detection, but the difference was not significant (p > 0.05). US can provide data as informative as MRI for estimation of metastases sizes in the vagina. The mean difference between MRI measurements and US measurements of the metastases volume was 0.79 mm (95% CI 0.62–0.95 cm3). Conclusions: US as a cheaper and simpler method could be an alternative for metastases detecting and treatment monitoring, especially if there are contraindications to MRI.
References
Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, et al.: Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: A worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8: e191-203.
Bellone S, Pecorelli S, Cannon MJ, et al. Advances in dendritic-cell-based therapeutic vaccines for cervical cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2007; 7: 1473–86.
Quinn MA, Benedet JL, Odicino F, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006; 95: 43–103.
Friedlander M, Grogan M. Guidelines for the treatment of recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer. Oncologist 2002; 7: 342–7. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2002-0342
Zanagnolo V, Ming L, Gadducci A, et al. Surveillance procedures for patients with cervical carcinoma: a review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009; 19: 194–201. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e31819c9ffd
Zola P, Fuso L, Mazzola S, et al. Could follow-up different modalities play a role in asymptomatic cervical cancer relapses diagnosis? An Italian multicenter retrospective analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 107: S150–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.07.028
Vincens E, Balleyguier C, Rey A, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting residual disease in patients treated for stage IB2/II cervical carcinoma with chemoradiation therapy: correlation of radiologic findings with surgicopathologic results. Cancer 2008; 113: 2158–65.
Ivankova VS. Methods for evaluating the effectiveness of chemoradiation treatment of patients with advanced cervical cancer. Ukr Radiol Zh 2014; 22: 22–6.
Bhatla N, Berek JS, Fredes MC, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019; 145: 129–35. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12749
Patel S, Liyanage S, Sahdev A, et al. Imaging of endometrial and cervical cancer. Insights Imaging 2010; 1: 309–28. doi: 10.1007/s13244-010-0042-7
Bakai OA, Golovko TS, Ganich AV, et al. Radiation research to determine local tumor invasion in patients with cervical cancer. Exp Oncol 2019; 41: 57–60.
Testa AC, Ludovisi M, Manfredi R., et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of presence, size and extent of invasive cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 335–44.
Fischerová D, Cibula D. The role of ultrasound in primary workup of cervical cancer staging (ESGO, ESTRO, ESP cervical cancer guidelines). Ceska Gynekol 2019; 84: 40–8.
Gottwald L, Lech W, Sobotkowski J, et al. Transvaginal doppler sonography for assessment the response to radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cervical cancer: a preliminary study. Arch Med Sci 2009; 5: 459–64.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 85–93.
Kim H. Tumor volume and uterine body invasion assessed by MRI for prediction of outcome in cervical carcinoma treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2007; 37: 858–66.
Narayan K, Fisher R, Bernshaw D. Significance of tumor volume and corpus uteri invasion in cervical cancer patients treated by radiotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006; 16: 623–30.
Bulanov MN. Ultrasound Gynecology: a Course of Lectures. 2nd Ed., in 2 parts. M.: VIDAR, 2014. 560 p.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical Cancer (Version 1.2021). http://www.nccn.org/professionals/ physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Accessed October 2, 2020
Bakay OA, Golovko TS. Use of elastography for cervical cancer diagnostics. Exp Oncol 2015; 37: 139–45.
Fischerova D, Cibula D, Stenhova H, et al. Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008; 18: 766–72.
Csutak C, Badea R, Bolboaca SD, et al. Multimodal endocavitary ultrasound versus MRI and clinical findings in pre- and post-treatment advanced cervical cancer. Preliminary report. Med Ultrason 2016; 18: 75–81.
Perniola G, Fischetti M, Tomao F, et al. Evaluation of parametrial status in locally advanced cervical cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A prospective study on diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound. Oncology 2020; 98: 603–11.
Zhu Yi, Lu M, Dai KJu, et al. Comparison between 360° 3-d transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of vaginal invasion in cervical cancer: a preliminary report. Ultrasound Med Biol 2021; 47: 2250–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.04.013
Chao X, Fan J, Song X, et al. Diagnostic strategies for recurrent cervical cancer: a cohort study. Front Oncol 2020; 10: 591253. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.591253
Elsayes KM, Narra VR, Dillman JR, et al. Vaginal masses: magnetic resonance imaging features with pathologic correlation. Acta Radiol 2007; 48: 921–33. doi:10.1080/02841850701552926
Soo MJ, Bharwani N, Rockall AG, et al. Vagina and vulva: Imaging techniques, normal anatomy and anatomical variants. In: Hamm B., Ros P.R. (eds) Abdominal Imaging. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13327-5_197
Zheng W, Chen K, Peng C, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography vs MRI for evaluation of local invasion by cervical cancer. Br J Radiol 2018; 91: 20170858.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Experimental Oncology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
