Vaginosonography versus MRI in Pre-Treatment Evaluation of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Old Tool for a New Precision Approach?
MRI and gynecological oncology diagnosis
cervical cancer
transvaginal ultrasound
vaginosonography
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Nov 2022
22 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
20
10
2022
revised:
19
11
2022
accepted:
21
11
2022
entrez:
23
12
2022
pubmed:
24
12
2022
medline:
24
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aims to analyze the sensitivity of vaginosonography (VGS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the preoperative local evaluation of early-stage cervical cancers and to assess their accuracy in the detection of tumors, size of the lesions and stromal invasion by comparing them with the final histopathology report. This single-center study included 56 consecutive patients with cervical cancer who underwent VGS and MRI from November 2012 to January 2021. VGS significantly overestimated the lesion size by 2.7 mm (p = 0.002), and MRI underestimated it by 1.9 mm (p = 0.11). Both MRI and VGS had a good concordance with the pathology report (Cohen’s kappa of 0.73 and 0.81, respectively). However, MRI had a false-negative rate (38.1%) that was greater than VGS (0%) in cases of cervical tumor size <2 cm. We found a good concordance between histology and VGS in the stromal infiltration assessment, with 89% sensitivity (95% CI 0.44−0.83) and 89% specificity (95% CI 0.52−0.86). VGS is a simple, inexpensive, widely available, and fast execution method that can complement ultrasound in particular cases and show a good correlation with MRI in the assessment of tumor dimensions, with a better performance in detecting small tumors (<2 cm).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36552913
pii: diagnostics12122904
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12122904
pmc: PMC9776852
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jul;28(5):741-68
pubmed: 24861248
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Oct;143 Suppl 2:22-36
pubmed: 30306584
Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Oct;91(1):59-66
pubmed: 14529663
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Mar;128(3):449-53
pubmed: 23022593
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Apr;45(4):470-5
pubmed: 25092154
J Ultrasound Med. 2016 Dec;35(12):2699-2715
pubmed: 27821656
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Mar;99(3):312-316
pubmed: 31628851
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017 Aug;25(3):635-649
pubmed: 28668164
Curr Oncol Rep. 2015 Jun;17(6):28
pubmed: 25980344
Fertil Steril. 2003 Apr;79(4):1023-7
pubmed: 12749448
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Dec;38(6):707-15
pubmed: 21538643
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014 Oct;64(5):311-6
pubmed: 25368452
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008 Jul-Aug;18(4):766-72
pubmed: 17892456
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;34(3):335-44
pubmed: 19705403
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Mar 27;12(4):
pubmed: 35453868
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;36(4):512-6
pubmed: 20336641
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Jan;30(1):16-20
pubmed: 31645425
Int J Clin Oncol. 2021 Sep;26(9):1600-1610
pubmed: 34241726
J Clin Ultrasound. 2016 Feb;44(2):78-84
pubmed: 26294324
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec 20;23(36):9329-37
pubmed: 16361632
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Aug;30(8):1215-1223
pubmed: 32636272
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jul;28(5):769-91
pubmed: 24861246
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;51(5):684-695
pubmed: 28620930