Comparison of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging results with postoperative pathologic results in early stage uterine cervical cancer

Objective: To compare the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of early stage cervical cancer patients with their postoperative hystopathologic results. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study evaluating oncology charts of 30 early-stage cervical carcinoma patients who were diagnosed and underwent surgery between July 2006 to August 2011 at the present institution. Preoperative MRI staging, clinical staging, and histopathologic staging results were compared. Results: Seven patients had clinically correct stage and 20 patients had correct MRI staging according to histopathology. MRI staging revealed 66% sensitivity and it was strongly correlated with pathologic staging. Cervical ring invasion was present in 20 patients pathologically, whereas 13 patients were diagnosed positive on MRI evaluation. Among ten patients without cervical ring invasion, MRI diagnosed six of them correctly. Of the 11 positive parametrial invasion patients diagnosed pathologically, MRI ruled out only seven of them. Conclusion: Preoperative MRI staging might be a better tool to stage cervical cancer than clinical staging. MRI evaluates parametrial invasion and cervical ring involvement appropriately.

Magnetic resonance imaging; Uterine cervical cancer; Tumor staging; Histopathology.

[1] American Cancer Society: “Cancer Facts & Figures”. Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society, 2014. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2014/cancer-facts-and-figures-2014.pdf

[2] Cannistra S.A., Niloff J.M.: “Cancer of the uterin cervix”. N. Engl. J. Med., 1996, 334, 1030.

[3] Benedet J.L., Pecorelli S., Ngan H.Y.S.: “Staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines for gynecological cancers”. 1sted. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2000.

[4] Park W., Park Y.H., Huh S.J., Kim B.G., Bae D.S., Lee J., et al.: “The usefulness of MRI and PET imaging for the detection of parametrial involvement and lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer”. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., 2005, 53, 260.

[5] The National Cancer Institute: “Title of stage 1b cervical cancer. The National Cancer Institute 2010”. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/cervical/HealthProfessional/page7

[6] Marhhorn E., Cohen I.: “Fertility preservation options for women with malignancies”. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv., 2007, 62, 58.

[7] Rob L., Skapa P., Robova H.: Fertility-sparing surgery in patients with cervical cancer. Lancet Oncol., 2011, 12, 192.

[8] Peppercorn P.D., Jeyarajah A.R., Woolas R., Shepherd J.H., Oram D.H., Jacobs I.J., et al.: “Role of MR imaging in the selection of patients with early cervical carcinoma for fertility-preserving surgery: initial experience”. Radiology, 1999, 212, 395.

[9] Lee S.I., Catalano O.A., Dehdashti F.: “Evaluation of Gynecologic Cancer with MR Imaging, 18F-FDG PET/CT, and PET/MR Imaging”. J. Nucl. Med., 2015, 56, 436.

[10] Pecorelli S.: “Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium”. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet., 2009, 105, 103.

[11] Koh W.J., Greer B.E., Abu-Rustum N.R., Apte S.M., Campos S.M., Chan J., et al.: “National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical cancer”. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw., 2013, 11, 320.

[12] Togashi K., Nishimura K., Sagoh T., Minami S., Noma S., Fujisawa I., et al.: “Carcinoma of the cervix: staging with MR imaging”. Radiology, 1989, 171, 245.

[13] Hricak H., Yu K.K.: “Radiology in invasive cervical cancer”. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol., 1996, 167, 1101.

[14] Marchiolè P., Cittadini G., Sala P., Moioli M., Mathevet P., Capaccio E., Costantini S.: “Pre- and post-operative work-up in patients affected by early cervical cancer and eligible for fertility-sparing treatment: role of MRI with saline hydrocolpos”. Abdom. Imaging, 2010, 35, 271.

[15] Mitchell D.G., Snyder B., Coakley F., Reinhold C., Thomas G., 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, 5687.

[16] Choi S.H., Kim S.H., Choi H.J., Park B.K., Lee H.J.: “Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: results of prospective study”. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr., 2004, 28, 620.

[17] Boss E.A., Barentsz J.O., Massuger L.F., Boonstra H.: “The role of MR imaging in invasive cervical carcinoma”. Eur. Radiol., 2000, 10, 256.

[18] Ozsarlak O., Tjalma W., Schepens E., Corthouts B., Op de Beeck B., Van Marck E., et al.: “The correlation of preoperative CT, MR imaging, and clinical staging [FIGO] with histopathology findings in primary cervical carcinoma”. Eur. Radiol., 2003, 13, 2338.

[19] Dhoot N.M., Kumar V., Shinagare A., Kataki A.C., Barmon D., Bhuyan U.: “Evaluation of carcinoma cervix using magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with clinical FIGO staging and impact on management”. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol., 2012, 56, 58.

[20] Mezrich R.: “Magnetic resonance imaging applications in uterine cervical cancer”. Magn. Resonance Imag. Clin. North Am., 1994, 2, 211.