Efficacy Of Mri In Diagnosis, Staging, And Treatment Response Assessment Of Carcinoma Cervix: A Comprehensive Study
Main Article Content
Abstract
All female genital cancers in India have cervical carcinoma as their primary form with incidence rates between 86-90%. The proper evaluation of disease spread together with staging serves as an essential requirement for managing cervical cancer cases. The previous staging procedures including cystoscopy and sigmoidoscopy and pelvic examination yielded insufficient data about the disease. Medical imaging specialists have chosen MRI together with CT as their preferred strategy for cervical cancer clinical staging. The evaluation of disease stage and spread requires the most accurate imaging technique to be MRI. A research investigation sought to assess whether MRI delivered adequate results when detecting and grading cervical cancer. There were 90 cases of newly diagnosed and confirmed histopathologically uterine cervical carcinoma which received chemoradiotherapy before inclusion into this study. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system was used for tumor assessment on MRI examinations. A 1.5 Tesla magnet served for pelvic MRI examinations of all participants. Newly diagnosed cervical cancer proved to have suspicious masses in 86.84% of cases while recurrent cancer showed these masses in 80.7% of cases. The diagnostic accuracy in new cases reached 89.82% and calculated with sensitivity at 90.20% along with specificity at 18% and PPV at 93.14% while NPV arrived at 95.45%. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for recurrent cases were reported at 68.54% while sensitivity reached 91% and specificity reached 42% and PPV reached 72.36% alongside NPV reaching 76%. The superior diagnosis of tumor staging and disease extent along with treatment response evaluation in cervical carcinoma is achieved through MR imaging technology which demonstrates better results than clinical examination.
Article Details
References
Aravindh SA, Mintu MA, Vipin GK. MRI versus clinical assessment in staging and response evaluation in locally advanced cervix cancer patients treated with concurrent chemo-radiation in a tertiary cancer center: a prospective study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 6:392-9.
Kaur H, Silverman PM, Iyer RB, Verschraegen CF, Eifel PJ, Charnsangavej C. Diagnosis, staging and surveillance of cervical carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180:1621-32.
World Health Organization. Latest world cancer statistics. Available at: https:// www.iarc.fr/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/pr223_E.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2018.
Kurman RJ, Cargangiu ML, Herrington S, Young RH. World Health Organization classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. IARC Press. Lyon, 2014.
Maria Milagros Otero-Garcia, Alicia Mesa-Alvarez, Olivera Nikolic, Patricia Blanco-Lobato, Marijana Basta-Nikolic, Rafael Menendez de Llano-Ortega, Laura Paredes-Velazquez, Nikola Nikolic and Magda Szewczyk-Bieda. Role of MRI in staging and follow-up of endometrial and cervical cancer: pitfalls and mimickers. Otero-García et al. Insights into Imaging. 2019; 10(19):1-22.
Narayan K, McKenzie AF, Hicks RJ, Fisher R, Bernshaw D, Bau S. Relation between FIGO stage, primary tumor volume, and presence of lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients referred for radiotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003; 13:657-63.
Rizzo S, Calareso G, Maccagnoni S, Angileri SA, Landoni F, Raimondi S et al. Pre-operative MR evaluation of features that indicate the need of adjuvant therapies in early stage cervical cancer patients. A single-centre experience. Euro J of Radiology. 2014; 83(5):858-64
Lalwani N, Dubinsky T, Javitt MC et al. ACR appropriateness criteria (R) pretreatment evaluation and follow-up of endometrial cancer. Ultrasound Q. 2014; 30(1):21-28
Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum N, Bean S et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). Cervical Cancer Version 1. 2018. Available at: https://oncolife.com.ua/doc/nccn/Cervical_Cancer.pdf.
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(2):69-90.
World Cancer Research Fund International. 2012 September 22nd, 2015]. Available from: http:// www.wcrf.org/int /cancer-facts-figures/worldwide-data.
Babar S, Rockall A, Goode A, Shepherd J, Reznek R. Magnetic resonance imaging appearances of recurrent cervical carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007; 17(3):637-645.
Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. FIGO Cancer report. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 143(2):22-36.
Patel-Lippmann K, Robbins J, Barroilhet L, Anderson B, Sadowski E, Boyum J. MR imaging of cervical cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2017.03.007.
McCarthy S, Hricak H. The uterus and vagina. In: Higgins CB, Hricak H, Helms CA, eds. Magnetic resonance imaging of the body. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Lippincott-Raven, 1997, 761-814.
Togashi K, Morikawa K, Kataoka ML, Konishi J. Cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998; 8:391- 397.
Narender Reddy Peddareddy, Santhosh Babu Rendla, Sumalatha Kasturi and Narender GajulA. MR Imaging of Carcinoma Cervix. Int. J Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2016; 5(7):619-626.
Mangal Mahajan, Rajesh Kuber, Chaudhari KR, Prashant Chaudhari, Pravin Ghadage, Rushikesh Naik. MR imaging of carcinoma cervix. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2013; 23(3):247-252.
Nicolate V, Carignan L, Bourdon F, Prosmanne O. MR imaging of cervical carcinoma: A practical staging approach. Radio Graphics. 2000; 20:1539-49.
Okamoto Y, Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Yoshikawa H, Itai Y. MR Imaging of the uterine cervix: Imaging-pathologic correlation. Radio Graphics. 2003; 23:425-45.
Follen M, Levenback CF, Iyer RB, Grigsby PW, Boss EA, Delpassand ES et al. Imaging in cervicalcancer. Cancer Suppl Suppl. 2003; 98:2028-38.
Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK. CT evaluation of cervical cancer: Spectrum of disease. Radio Graphics. 2001; 21:115568.
Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK. CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. Radio-Graphics 2001; 21:1155-1168.
Feong YY, Kang HK, Chung TW, Seo FF, Park FG. Uterine cervical carcinoma after therapy: CT and MRI imaging findings. Radio Graphics. 2003; 23:969-81.
Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F et al. ESMO- ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Radiother Oncol. 2015; 117(3):559-581.
Nougaret S, Horta M, Sala E et al. Endometrial cancer MRI staging: update guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29:792 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5515-y.
Patel-Lippmann K, Robbins J, Barroilhet L, Anderson B, Sadowski E, Boyum J. MR imaging of cervical cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2017.03.007.
Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. FIGO Cancer report 2018. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 143(2):22-36.