• Something wrong with this record ?

Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound examination in preoperative pelvic staging of early-stage cervical cancer: post-hoc analysis of SENTIX study

D. Cibula, C. Köhler, J. Jarkovský, R. Kocián, P. Dundr, J. Klát, I. Zapardiel, F. Landoni, F. Frühauf, R. Fischbach, M. Borčinová, D. Fischerová

. 2025 ; 65 (4) : 495-502. [pub] 20250325

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Grant support
BBM LM2023033 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic
EF16_013/0001674 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic
CZ-DRO-VFN64165 Všeobecná Fakultní Nemocnice v Praze
NV19-03-00023 Czech Health Research Council
UNCE/24/MED/018 Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Cooperatio - Maternal and Childhood Care; Neonat

OBJECTIVES: SENTIX was a prospective, single-arm, international multicenter study that evaluated sentinel lymph node biopsy without pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. We aimed to evaluate the concordance between preoperative imaging modalities (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound) and final pathology in the clinical staging of early-stage cervical cancer by post-hoc analysis of the SENTIX study data. METHODS: In total, 47 sites across 18 countries participated in the SENTIX study. Patients with Stage IA1/lymphovascular space invasion-positive to IB2 (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification (2018)) cervical cancer, with usual histological types and no suspicious lymph nodes on imaging, were prospectively enrolled between May 2016 and October 2020. Preoperative pelvic clinical staging on either pelvic MRI or ultrasound examination was mandatory. Tumor size discrepancy (< 10 mm vs ≥ 10 mm) between imaging and pathology, as well as the negative predictive value (NPV) of MRI and ultrasound for parametrial involvement and lymph node macrometastasis, were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 690 eligible prospectively enrolled patients, MRI and ultrasound were used as the staging imaging modality in 322 (46.7%) and 298 (43.2%) patients, respectively. A discrepancy of tumor size ≥ 10 mm was reported between ultrasound and final pathology in 39/298 (13.1%) patients and between MRI and pathology in 53/322 (16.5%), with no significant difference in the accuracy of tumor measurement between the two imaging modalities. The NPV of ultrasound in assessing parametrial infiltration and lymph node involvement was 97.0% (95% CI, 0.95-0.99%) and 94.0% (95% CI, 0.91-0.97%), respectively, and that of MRI was 95.3% (95% CI, 0.93-0.98%) and 94.1% (95% CI, 0.92-0.97%), respectively, with no significant differences between the parameters. Ultrasound and MRI were comparable regarding the tumor size measurement (P = 0.452), failure to detect parametrial involvement (P = 0.624) and failure to detect macrometastases in sentinel lymph node (P = 0.876). CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic ultrasound examination and MRI had similar concordance with histology in the assessment of tumor size and of parametrial and lymph node invasion in early-stage cervical cancer. Ultrasound examination should be considered part of preoperative pelvic clinical staging in early-stage cervical cancer, especially in limited-resource regions where MRI is unavailable. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25016234
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250731091627.0
007      
ta
008      
250708s2025 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1002/uog.29205 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)40130299
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Cibula, D $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000163879356 $7 jo20000074072
245    10
$a Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound examination in preoperative pelvic staging of early-stage cervical cancer: post-hoc analysis of SENTIX study / $c D. Cibula, C. Köhler, J. Jarkovský, R. Kocián, P. Dundr, J. Klát, I. Zapardiel, F. Landoni, F. Frühauf, R. Fischbach, M. Borčinová, D. Fischerová
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: SENTIX was a prospective, single-arm, international multicenter study that evaluated sentinel lymph node biopsy without pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. We aimed to evaluate the concordance between preoperative imaging modalities (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound) and final pathology in the clinical staging of early-stage cervical cancer by post-hoc analysis of the SENTIX study data. METHODS: In total, 47 sites across 18 countries participated in the SENTIX study. Patients with Stage IA1/lymphovascular space invasion-positive to IB2 (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification (2018)) cervical cancer, with usual histological types and no suspicious lymph nodes on imaging, were prospectively enrolled between May 2016 and October 2020. Preoperative pelvic clinical staging on either pelvic MRI or ultrasound examination was mandatory. Tumor size discrepancy (< 10 mm vs ≥ 10 mm) between imaging and pathology, as well as the negative predictive value (NPV) of MRI and ultrasound for parametrial involvement and lymph node macrometastasis, were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 690 eligible prospectively enrolled patients, MRI and ultrasound were used as the staging imaging modality in 322 (46.7%) and 298 (43.2%) patients, respectively. A discrepancy of tumor size ≥ 10 mm was reported between ultrasound and final pathology in 39/298 (13.1%) patients and between MRI and pathology in 53/322 (16.5%), with no significant difference in the accuracy of tumor measurement between the two imaging modalities. The NPV of ultrasound in assessing parametrial infiltration and lymph node involvement was 97.0% (95% CI, 0.95-0.99%) and 94.0% (95% CI, 0.91-0.97%), respectively, and that of MRI was 95.3% (95% CI, 0.93-0.98%) and 94.1% (95% CI, 0.92-0.97%), respectively, with no significant differences between the parameters. Ultrasound and MRI were comparable regarding the tumor size measurement (P = 0.452), failure to detect parametrial involvement (P = 0.624) and failure to detect macrometastases in sentinel lymph node (P = 0.876). CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic ultrasound examination and MRI had similar concordance with histology in the assessment of tumor size and of parametrial and lymph node invasion in early-stage cervical cancer. Ultrasound examination should be considered part of preoperative pelvic clinical staging in early-stage cervical cancer, especially in limited-resource regions where MRI is unavailable. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    12
$a nádory děložního čípku $x patologie $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D002583
650    12
$a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $x metody $7 D008279
650    _2
$a staging nádorů $x metody $7 D009367
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a ultrasonografie $x metody $7 D014463
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a pánev $x diagnostické zobrazování $x patologie $7 D010388
650    _2
$a předoperační péče $x metody $7 D011300
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a lymfatické metastázy $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D008207
650    _2
$a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
650    _2
$a biopsie sentinelové lymfatické uzliny $7 D021701
650    _2
$a lymfatické uzliny $x patologie $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D008198
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Köhler, C $u Department of Gynecology, Asklepios Clinic Hamburg Altona, Berlin, Germany $u Department of Gynecology, DRK Klinik Berlin Westend, Berlin, Germany
700    1_
$a Jarkovský, J $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kocián, R $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Dundr, P $u Department of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Klát, J $u University Hospital Ostrava and Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Zapardiel, I $u Gynecologic Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
700    1_
$a Landoni, F $u UNIMIB-IRCCS-San Gerardo, Monza, Italy
700    1_
$a Frühauf, F $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Fischbach, R $u Department of Radiology, Asklepios Clinic Hamburg Altona, Berlin, Germany
700    1_
$a Borčinová, M $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Fischerová, D $u Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00010717 $t Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology $x 1469-0705 $g Roč. 65, č. 4 (2025), s. 495-502
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40130299 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250708 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250731091621 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2366818 $s 1253359
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2025 $b 65 $c 4 $d 495-502 $e 20250325 $i 1469-0705 $m Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology $n Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol $x MED00010717
GRA    __
$a BBM LM2023033 $p Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic
GRA    __
$a EF16_013/0001674 $p Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic
GRA    __
$a CZ-DRO-VFN64165 $p Všeobecná Fakultní Nemocnice v Praze
GRA    __
$a NV19-03-00023 $p Czech Health Research Council
GRA    __
$a UNCE/24/MED/018 $p Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Cooperatio - Maternal and Childhood Care; Neonat
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250708

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...