Correction: Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of DWI and DCE-MRI in depth of myometrial invasion, cervical invasion and FIGO staging in patients with endometrial cancer

The authors have identified errors in the original article [1] and wish to provide the following corrections. These changes do not affect the overall results, statistical analyses, or conclusions of the study.

1. Correction to Pathological FIGO Staging Distribution (Table 1)

The FIGO staging distribution in Table 1 of the original article contained transcription errors. The corrected pathological FIGO staging distribution is as follows:

The FIGO staging section in Table 1 should be revised to:

The FIGO staging data presented in Tables 10 and 11 were correct and were properly used for the diagnostic accuracy analysis. Consequently, the diagnostic accuracy values for FIGO staging remain unchanged: DWI: 86.72% (111/128) and DCE-MRI: 65.63% (84/128).

2. Correction to Table 7 (Diagnostic Performance of DCE-MRI for Cervical Invasion)

The accuracy value for DCE-MRI in assessing cervical invasion was incorrectly calculated in the original publication. The numerator and denominator were correct, but the percentage was misreported.

Corrected DCE-MRI row in Table 7:

These corrections do not affect the core statistical results or the conclusions of the study.

3. Reference Corrections and Text Revisions

Several references were insufficiently matched to the statements they supported. The updated references are:

[1] Makker V, MacKay H, Ray-Coquard I, Levine DA, Westin SN, Aoki D, et al. Endometrial cancer. Nature Reviews Disease Primers. 2021; 7: 88.

[2] Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021; 71: 209–249.

[3] Abu-Rustum N, Yashar C, Arend R, Barber E, Bradley K, Brooks R, et al. Uterine neoplasms, version 1.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2023; 21: 181–209.

[7] Gil RT, Cunha TM, Horta M, Alves I. The added value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the preoperative assessment of endometrial cancer. Radiologia Brasileira. 2019; 52: 229–236.

[8] Winarto H, Habiburrahman M, Siregar TP, Nuryanto KH. Magnetic resonance imaging pitfalls in determining myometrial invasion in stage I endometrial cancer: a case report and literature review. Radiology Case Reports. 2022; 17: 2680–2688.

[9] Bi Q, Chen Y, Wu K, Wang J, Zhao Y, Wang B, et al. The diagnostic value of MRI for preoperative staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Academic Radiology. 2020; 27: 960–968.

[10] Wang H, Yan R, Li Z, Wang B, Jin X, Guo Z, et al. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced parameters and intravoxel incoherent motion facilitate the prediction of TP53 status and risk stratification of early-stage endometrial carcinoma. Radiology and Oncology. 2023; 57: 257–269.

[11] Hashimoto C, Shigeta S, Shimada M, Shibuya Y, Ishibashi M, Kageyama S, et al. Diagnostic performance of preoperative imaging in endometrial cancer. Current Oncology. 2023; 30: 8233–8244.

[12] Berek JS, Matias-Guiu X, Creutzberg C, Fotopoulou C, Gaffney D, Kehoe S, et al.; Endometrial Cancer Staging Subcommittee, FIGO Women’s Cancer Committee. FIGO staging of endometrial cancer: 2023. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2023; 162: 383–394. Erratum in: International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2024; 166: 1374.

[13] Pintican R, Bura V, Zerunian M, Smith J, Addley H, Freeman S, et al. MRI of the endometrium—from normal appearances to rare pathology. The British Journal of Radiology. 2021; 94: 20201347.

[14] Nougaret S, Horta M, Sala E, Lakhman Y, Thomassin-Naggara I, Kido A, et al. Endometrial cancer MRI staging: updated guidelines of the European society of urogenital radiology. European Radiology. 2019; 29: 792–805.

[17] Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Vergote I, Cibula D, Mirza MR, Marnitz S, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2021; 31: 12–39.

[18] Crosbie EJ, Kitson SJ, McAlpine JN, Mukhopadhyay A, Powell ME, Singh N. Endometrial cancer. The Lancet. 2022; 399: 1412–1428.

The corresponding sentences were revised as follows:

Endometrial carcinoma is a malignant tumor arising from the uterine endometrium and is one of the most common gynecological malignancies in women [1]. According to global cancer statistics, cancer of the corpus uteri remains a major contributor to the global burden of female malignancies [2]. The evaluation of the overall condition of patients is important for determining the surgical approach, treatment planning and prognosis. Among these factors, the depth of myometrial invasion, cervical stromal invasion and FIGO stage are essential preoperative evaluation indicators [3, 4].

However, the added value of DWI in the preoperative assessment of endometrial cancer remains clinically relevant, and further comparison with contrast-enhanced MRI techniques is warranted [7].

Conventional MRI may be affected by several pitfalls, and its diagnostic performance varies across different staging-related factors, including myometrial invasion, cervical invasion, and lymph node metastasis [8, 9].

Therefore, with the continuous development of MRI technology, functional MRI sequences such as DWI and DCE-MRI have been increasingly used to improve preoperative assessment [10].

The diagnostic accuracy for FIGO staging in this study was slightly lower than that reported in some previous studies. This may be partly because the present cohort included a broader range of pathological FIGO stages, while the assessment of extrauterine spread, adnexal involvement, and lymph node metastasis remains challenging on preoperative imaging [11, 12].

After further review, the basic principle of DCE-MRI is to evaluate tumor vascularity and hemodynamic enhancement after contrast administration. However, in postmenopausal women, endometrial and myometrial changes, including an indistinct junctional zone or reduced tissue contrast, may complicate the evaluation of the endometrial–myometrial interface [13]. These imaging pitfalls may affect interpretation by radiologists and reduce diagnostic accuracy in some cases [14].

Clinical guidelines and FIGO staging emphasize that treatment strategies for endometrial cancer should be based on tumor stage, histopathological features and individual risk factors [17, 18].

The authors sincerely apologize for these errors and any inconvenience they may have caused to readers.