"skipMainNavigation"
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
Previous
Next
Original Research

Uterine Cervical Carcinoma: Preoperative Staging with 3.0-T MR Imaging—Comparison with 1.5-T MR Imaging

Published Online:Apr 1 2009https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2511081265

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy of 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the preoperative staging of cervical carcinoma compared with that at 1.5-T imaging, with surgery and pathologic analysis as the reference standards.

Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Thirty-one consecutive patients (age range, 27–71 years; mean age, 51.1 years) underwent 3.0- and 1.5-T MR imaging. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed. Two radiologists independently evaluated images in terms of local-regional staging. MR findings were compared with surgicopathologic findings.

Results: Mean tumor signal-to-noise ratios, mean cervical stroma signal-to-noise ratios, and mean tumor-to–cervical stroma contrast-to-noise ratios at 3.0-T imaging were significantly higher than those at 1.5-T imaging (P = 9.1 × 10−6, P = 1.8 × 10−6, and P = .008, respectively). Image homogeneity at 3.0-T imaging was significantly inferior to that at 1.5-T imaging (P = .005). There were no significant differences in terms of the degree of susceptibility artifacts. Interobserver agreement between the two radiologists for local-regional staging was good or excellent (κ = 0.65–0.89). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for radiologist 1 in the evaluation of parametrial invasion were (a) 75% for both 3.0- and 1.5-T imaging, (b) 70% for both 3.0- and 1.5-T imaging, and (c) 0.82 for 3.0-T imaging and 0.85 for 1.5-T imaging, respectively. Corresponding values for vaginal invasion were (a) 67% for both 3.0- and 1.5-T imaging, (b) 68% for 3.0-T imaging and 72% for 1.5-T imaging, and (c) 0.62 for 3.0-T imaging and 0.67 for 1.5-T imaging, respectively. Corresponding values for lymph node metastases were (a) 57% for both 3.0- and 1.5-T imaging, (b) 83% for 3.0-T imaging and 88% for 1.5-T imaging, and (c) 0.72 for 3.0-T imaging and 0.78 for 1.5-T imaging, respectively. Neither radiologist noted significant differences between values obtained with 3.0-T imaging and those obtained with 1.5-T imaging (P > .5 for all comparison pairs).

Conclusion: In this study, 3.0-T MR imaging was characterized by high diagnostic accuracy in the presurgical evaluation of patients with cervical carcinoma, although 3.0-T imaging was not significantly superior to 1.5-T imaging.

© RSNA, 2009

References

  • 1 American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2008. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society, 2008.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Miller AB, Lindsay J, Hill GB. Mortality from cancer of the uterus in Canada and its relationship to screening for cancer of the cervix. Int J Cancer 1976; 17(5): 602–612.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 3 Devesa SS, Young JL Jr, Brinton LA, Fraumeni JF Jr. Recent trends in cervix uteri cancer. Cancer 1989;64(10):2184–2190.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 4 Benedet JL, Anderson GH, Matisic JP. A comprehensive program for cervical cancer detection and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166(4):1254–1259.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 5 Koyama T, Tamai K, Togashi K. Staging of carcinoma of the uterine cervix and endometrium. Eur Radiol 2007;17(8):2009–2019.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 6 Van Nagell JR Jr, Roddick JW Jr, Lowin DM. The staging of cervical cancer: inevitable discrepancies between clinical staging and pathologic findinges. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1971;110(7):973–978.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 7 Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, Chang YC, Winkler ML, Stern JL. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 1988;166(3):623–631.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Togashi K, Nishimura K, Itoh K, et al. Uterine cervical cancer: assessment with high-field MR imaging. Radiology 1986;160(2):431–435.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Togashi K, Nishimura K, Sagoh T, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: staging with MR imaging. Radiology 1989;171(1):245–251.
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Kim SH, Choi BI, Lee HP, et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR findings. Radiology 1990;175(1):45–51.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Hricak H, Powell CB, Yu KK, et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: role of MR imaging in pretreatment work-up—cost minimization and diagnostic efficacy analysis. Radiology 1996;198(2):403–409.
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Bipat S, Glas AS, van der Velden J, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91(1):59–66.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 13 Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(36):9329–9337.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 14 Merkle EM, Dale BM. Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(6):1524–1532.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 15 Kuhl CK, Traber F, Schild HH. Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. I. Technical considerations and clinical applications. Radiology 2008;246(3):675–696.
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Morakkabati-Spitz N, Gieseke J, Kuhl C, et al. 3.0-T high-field magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: preliminary experiences. Eur Radiol 2005;15(4):639–644.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 17 Morakkabati-Spitz N, Schild HH, Kuhl CK, et al. Female pelvis: MR imaging at 3.0 T with sensitivity encoding and flip-angle sweep technique. Radiology 2006;241(2):538–545.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Morakkabati-Spitz N, Gieseke J, Kuhl C, et al. MRI of the pelvis at 3 T: very high spatial resolution with sensitivity encoding and flip-angle sweep technique in clinically acceptable scan time. Eur Radiol 2006;16(3):634–641.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 19 Kataoka M, Kido A, Koyama T, et al. MRI of the female pelvis at 3T compared to 1.5T: evaluation on high-resolution T2-weighted and HASTE images. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25(3):527–534.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 20 Torricelli P, Ferraresi S, Fiocchi F, et al. 3-T MRI in the preoperative evaluation of depth of myometrial infiltration in endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(2):489–495.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 21 Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1974;44(2):265–272.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 22 Schmitt M, Feiweier T, Horger W, et al. Improved uniformity of RF-distribution in clinical whole body–imaging at 3T by means of dielectric pads [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the 12th Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2004; 197.
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Yang QX, Mao W, Wang J, et al. Manipulation of image intensity distribution at 7.0 T: passive RF shimming and focusing with dielectric materials. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24(1):197–202.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 24 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159–174.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 25 Gibbs GF, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, Riederer SJ, Brown RD Jr. Improved image quality of intracranial aneurysms: 3.0-T versus 1.5-T time-of-flight MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25(1):84–87.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 26 Kuhl CK, Textor J, Gieseke J, et al. Acute and subacute ischemic stroke at high-field-strength (3.0-T) diffusion-weighted MR imaging: intraindividual comparative study. Radiology 2005;234(2):509–516.
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Norris DG. High field human imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;18(5):519–529.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 28 Schick F. Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol 2005;15(5):946–959.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 29 Edelman RR, Salanitri G, Brand R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas at 3.0 tesla: qualitative and quantitative comparison with 1.5 tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41(2):175–180.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 30 Halpern EF, Gazelle GS. Probability in radiology. Radiology 2003;226(1):12–15.
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Bottomley PA, Foster TH, Argersinger RE, Pfeifer LM. A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1–100 MHz: dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age. Med Phys 1984;11(4):425–448.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 32 de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004;230(3):652–659.
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Peppercorn PD, Jeyarajah AR, Woolas R, et al. Role of MR imaging in the selection of patients with early cervical carcinoma for fertility-preserving surgery: initial experience. Radiology 1999;212(2):395–399.
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Yamashita Y, Takahashi M, Sawada T, Miyazaki K, Okamura H. Carcinoma of the cervix: dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1992;182(3):643–648.
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Fujiwara K, Yoden E, Asakawa T, et al. Negative MRI findings with invasive cervical biopsy may indicate stage IA cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2000;79(3):451–456.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 36 Scheidler J, Heuck AF, Steinborn M, Kimmig R, Reiser MF. Parametrial invasion in cervical carcinoma: evaluation of detection at MR imaging with fat suppression. Radiology 1998;206(1):125–129.
    Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2009