OBJECTIVE: To evaluate interobserver agreement for the assessment of local tumor extension in women with cervical cancer, among experienced and less experienced observers, using transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: The TVS observers were all gynecologists and consultant ultrasound specialists, six with and seven without previous experience in cervical cancer imaging. The MRI observers were five radiologists experienced in pelvic MRI and four less experienced radiology residents without previous experience in MRI of the pelvis. The less experienced TVS observers and all MRI observers underwent a short basic training session in the assessment of cervical tumor extension, while the experienced TVS observers received only a written directive. All observers were assigned the same images from cervical cancer patients at all stages (n = 60) and performed offline evaluation to answer the following three questions: (1) Is there a visible primary tumor? (2) Does the tumor infiltrate > ⅓ of the cervical stroma? and (3) Is there parametrial invasion? Interobserver agreement within the four groups of observers was assessed using Fleiss kappa (κ) with 95% CI. RESULTS: Experienced and less experienced TVS observers, respectively, had moderate interobserver agreement with respect to tumor detection (κ (95% CI), 0.46 (0.40-0.53) and 0.46 (0.41-0.52)), stromal invasion > ⅓ (κ (95% CI), 0.45 (0.38-0.51) and 0.53 (0.40-0.58)) and parametrial invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.57 (0.51-0.64) and 0.44 (0.39-0.50)). Experienced MRI observers had good interobserver agreement with respect to tumor detection (κ (95% CI), 0.70 (0.62-0.78)), while less experienced MRI observers had moderate agreement (κ (95% CI), 0.51 (0.41-0.62)), and both experienced and less experienced MRI observers, respectively, had good interobserver agreement regarding stromal invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.80 (0.72-0.88) and 0.71 (0.61-0.81)) and parametrial invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.69 (0.61-0.77) and 0.71 (0.61-0.81)). CONCLUSIONS: We found interobserver agreement for the assessment of local tumor extension in patients with cervical cancer to be moderate for TVS and moderate-to-good for MRI. The level of interobserver agreement was associated with experience among TVS observers only for parametrial invasion. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Department of Clinical Science and Education Karolinska Institutet and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Södersjukhuset Stockholm Sweden

Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden

Department of Clinical Sciences Danderyd Hospital Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden

Department of Diagnostic Radiology Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm Sweden

Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Danderyd Hospital Stockholm Sweden

Department of Radiology Capio S t Göran Hospital Stockholm Sweden

Department of Surgical Sciences Section for Radiology Uppsala University Uppsala University Hospital Uppsala Sweden

Department of Women's and Children's Health Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden

Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS Rome Italy

Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Rome Italy

Division of Pelvic Cancer Theme Cancer Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm Sweden

Gynecologic Oncology Center Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General University Hospital Prague Prague Czech Republic

Obstetrics and Gynecology Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Lithuania

See more in PubMed

Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, Kehoe ST, Konishi I, Olawaiye AB, Prat J, Sankaranarayanan R, Brierley J, Mutch D, Querleu D, Cibula D, Quinn M, Botha H, Sigurd L, Rice L, Ryu HS, Ngan H, Maenpaa J, Andrijono A, Purwoto G, Maheshwari A, Bafna UD, Plante M, Natarajan J. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019; 145: 129–135. PubMed

Lagasse LD, Creasman WT, Shingleton HM, Ford JH, Blessing JA. Results and complications of operative staging in cervical cancer: experience of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol 1980; 9: 90–98. PubMed

Qin Y, Peng Z, Lou J, Liu H, Deng F, Zheng Y. Discrepancies between clinical staging and pathological findings of operable cervical carcinoma with stage IB‐IIB: a retrospective analysis of 818 patients. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49: 542–544. PubMed

Tummers WP, Gerestein WK, Mens WJ, Verstraelen WH, Van Doorn WH. Interobserver Variability of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging in Cervical Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013; 23: 890–894. PubMed

Thomeer MG, Gerestein C, Spronk S, van Doorn HC, van der Ham E, Hunink MG. Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2005–2018. PubMed

Choi SH, Kim SH, Choi HJ, Park BK, Lee HJ. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: results of prospective study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004; 28: 620–627. PubMed

Sheu MH, Chang CY, Wang JH, Yen MS. Preoperative staging of cervical carcinoma with MR imaging: a reappraisal of diagnostic accuracy and pitfalls. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 1828–1833. PubMed

Sahdev A, Sohaib SA, Wenaden AE, Shepherd JH, Reznek RH. The performance of magnetic resonance imaging in early cervical carcinoma: a long‐term experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007; 17: 629–636. PubMed

Fischerova D, Cibula D, Stenhova H, Vondrichova H, Calda P, Zikan M, Freitag P, Slama J, Dundr P, Belacek J. Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008; 18: 766–772. PubMed

Epstein E, Testa A, Gaurilcikas A, Di Legge A, Ameye L, Atstupenaite V, Valentini AL, Gui B, Wallengren NO, Pudaric S, Cizauskas A, Masback A, Zannoni GF, Kannisto P, Zikan M, Pinkavova I, Burgetova A, Dundr P, Nemejcova K, Cibula D, Fischerova D. Early‐stage cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound ‐ a European multicenter trial. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 128: 449–453. PubMed

Moloney F, Ryan D, Twomey M, Hewitt M, Barry J. Comparison of MRI and high‐resolution transvaginal sonography for the local staging of cervical cancer. J Clin Ultrasound 2016; 44: 78–84. PubMed

Testa AC, Ludovisi M, Manfredi R, Zannoni G, Gui B, Basso D, Di Legge A, Licameli A, Di Bidino R, Scambia G, Ferrandina G. Transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of presence, size and extent of invasive cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 335–344. PubMed

Qu JR, Qin L, Li X, Luo JP, Li J, Zhang HK, Wang L, Shao NN, Zhang SN, Li YL, Liu CC, Li HL. Predicting Parametrial Invasion in Cervical Carcinoma (Stages IB1, IB2, and IIA): Diagnostic Accuracy of T2‐Weighted Imaging Combined With DWI at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 210: 677–684. PubMed

Lin Y, Chen Z, Kuang F, Li H, Zhong Q, Ma M. Evaluation of international federation of gynecology and obstetrics stage IB cervical cancer: comparison of diffusion‐weighted and dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013; 37: 989–994. PubMed

Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 105: 107–108. PubMed

Fischerova D. Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecological tumors: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 246–266. PubMed

Brennan P, Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ 1992; 304: 1491–1494. PubMed PMC

Eriksson LS, Lindqvist PG, Floter Radestad A, Dueholm M, Fischerova D, Franchi D, Jokubkiene L, Leone FP, Savelli L, Sladkevicius P, Testa AC, Van den Bosch T, Ameye L, Epstein E. Transvaginal ultrasound assessment of myometrial and cervical stromal invasion in women with endometrial cancer: interobserver reproducibility among ultrasound experts and gynecologists. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 476–482. PubMed

Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Coakley FV, Snyder B, Reinhold C, Schwartz LH, Woodward PJ, Pannu HK, Amendola M, Mitchell DG. Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation – ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Radiology 2007; 245: 491–498. PubMed

Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol 1999; 73: 177–183. PubMed

Castanon A, Leung VM, Landy R, Lim AW, Sasieni P. Characteristics and screening history of women diagnosed with cervical cancer aged 20–29 years. Br J Cancer 2013; 109: 35–41. PubMed PMC

Andrae B, Andersson TM, Lambert PC, Kemetli L, Silfverdal L, Strander B, Ryd W, Dillner J, Tornberg S, Sparen P. Screening and cervical cancer cure: population based cohort study. BMJ 2012; 344: e900. PubMed PMC

Charles‐Edwards E, Morgan V, Attygalle AD, Giles SL, Ind TE, Davis M, Shepherd J, McWhinney N, de Souza NM. Endovaginal magnetic resonance imaging of stage 1A/1B cervical cancer with A T2‐ and diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance technique: effect of lesion size and previous cone biopsy on tumor detectability. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 120: 368–373. PubMed

Otero‐Garcia MM, Mesa‐Alvarez A, Nikolic O, Blanco‐Lobato P, Basta‐Nikolic M, de Llano‐Ortega RM, Paredes‐Velazquez L, Nikolic N, Szewczyk‐Bieda M. Role of MRI in staging and follow‐up of endometrial and cervical cancer: pitfalls and mimickers. Insights Imaging 2019; 10: 19. PubMed PMC

Exner M, Kuhn A, Stumpp P, Hockel M, Horn LC, Kahn T, Brandmaier P. Value of diffusion‐weighted MRI in diagnosis of uterine cervical cancer: a prospective study evaluating the benefits of DWI compared to conventional MR sequences in a 3T environment. Acta Radiol 2016; 57: 869–877. PubMed

Bakai OA, Golovko TS, Ganich AV, Gavriluk ON, Ashykhmin AV. Radiation research to determine local tumor invasion in patients with cervical cancer. Exp Oncol 2019; 41: 57–60. PubMed

Ultrasound examiners' ability to describe ovarian cancer spread using preacquired ultrasound videoclips from a selected patient sample with high prevalence of cancer spread

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

Staging by imaging in gynecologic cancer and the role of ultrasound: an update of European joint consensus statements

The Role of Imaging in Cervical Cancer Staging: ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines (Update 2023)