Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of tumor size following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer
Language English Country Great Britain, England Media print
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
23495185
DOI
10.1002/uog.12455
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- accuracy, cervical cancer, magnetic resonance imaging, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, staging, ultrasound,
- MeSH
- Adenocarcinoma diagnostic imaging drug therapy pathology MeSH
- Cisplatin administration & dosage MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Endosonography methods MeSH
- Ifosfamide administration & dosage MeSH
- Cohort Studies MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Uterine Cervical Neoplasms diagnostic imaging drug therapy pathology MeSH
- Neoadjuvant Therapy MeSH
- Paclitaxel administration & dosage MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols therapeutic use MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Carcinoma, Squamous Cell diagnostic imaging drug therapy pathology MeSH
- Tumor Burden * MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Cisplatin MeSH
- Ifosfamide MeSH
- Paclitaxel MeSH
OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in the evaluation of tumor size and in the detection of residual tumor following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective study involving 42 women with locally advanced histologically confirmed cervical cancer referred for NACT. Clinical examination, TRUS and MRI were performed before and after NACT. The tumor volume was calculated using three standardized diameters (anteroposterior, laterolateral and craniocaudal) that were measured using both TRUS and MRI. Thereafter patients underwent surgical treatment and the same tumor measurements were taken by a pathologist using a fixed surgical specimen. Tumor volumes were calculated from tumor dimensions using the ellipsoid formula, and data obtained from both imaging methods were compared with pathological results as the gold standard. RESULTS: Twelve cases were excluded from the study owing to disease progression (these patients were referred for primary radiotherapy) or inability to perform MRI, leaving data from 30 patients for the final analysis. On average, tumor volume decreased after NACT by 84.6 and 87.1% as measured by MRI and TRUS, respectively. The agreement between measurements obtained by MRI and histology did not reach significance (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.344 (95% CI, -0.013 to 0.610), P = 0.059), while agreement between TRUS and histology was statistically significant (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.795 (95% CI, 0.569-0.902), P < 0.001). The accuracy of residual tumor detection (for non-microscopic tumors > 5 mm3 in volume) reached 77% for both MRI and TRUS. The sensitivity of TRUS was, however, lower than that of MRI (83 vs. 96%). The positive predictive values were similar for the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: TRUS should be considered as an accurate diagnostic method in the evaluation of tumor volume after NACT in patients with cervical cancer and may constitute a reliable alternative imaging method to MRI.
References provided by Crossref.org
