Advancing Uterine Cancer Care: Transvaginal Ultrasonography in Preoperative Staging Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22317/imj.v7i4.1264Keywords:
Transvaginal ultrasonography, uterine cancer, MRI, Preoperative stagingAbstract
Objective: To determine the role of transvaginal ultrasonography in the preoperative staging of uterine cancer.
Methods: The research included 110 women who had been diagnosed with endometrial malignancy by histological confirmation, which
was achieved through procedures such as dilation and curettage, hysteroscopy, or endometrial biopsy. Additionally, women who had a
high suspicion of endometrial malignancy based on imaging results and were scheduled for surgery as their main therapy were also
eligible to participate in the study.
Results: A total of 110 individuals satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the research, with an average age of 49.89 ± 2.99 years. In relation to the extent of myometrial invasion, our study yielded sensitivity rates of 81%, 81%, and 69% for the subjective, Gordon, and Karlsson
techniques, respectively. The corresponding specificity rates were found to be 67%, 60%, and 81% for the same approaches. The subjective, Gordon, and Karlsson techniques yielded corresponding overall accuracies of 74%, 70%, and 75%. The use of contrast-enhanced MRI yielded a sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of 94%, 72%, and 84%, respectively, in the assessment of myometrial invasion. In the assessment of cervical stromal invasion, the ultrasound subjective technique showed a sensitivity of 33% and a specificity of 99%. On the other hand, the objective method yielded a sensitivity of 52% and a specificity of 92%. The total accuracy for both methods was determined to be 90% and 83% respectively. The use of contrast-enhanced MRI yielded a sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of 69%, 100%, and 96% respectively in detecting cervical involvement.
Conclusion: We concluded that the utilisation of pelvic ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer holds significant
value. It demonstrates a notable sensitivity in evaluating myometrial invasion, exhibiting a reasonable to moderate level of concordance
with MRI. Furthermore, it exhibits a superior, albeit still moderate, level of agreement with MRI in assessing cervical invasion.
References
Stukan M, Buderath P, Szulczyński B, Gębicki J, Kimmig R. Accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging of cervical cancer—analysis of patients from the prospective study on total mesometrial resection. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(10):1749. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11101749, PMID 34679447.
Rei M, Costa-Santos C, Bernardes J, Costa A. Preoperative staging of uterine cancer: can transvaginal ultrasonography play a role? Front Oncol. 2023 Jun 19;13:1089105. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1089105, PMID 37404747, PMCID PMC10315648.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7-30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21590, PMID 31912902.
Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, Bosse T, Gonzalez-Mart ´ ´ın A, Ledermann J, Marth C, Nout R, Querleu D, Mirza MR, Sessa C; ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Endometrial Consensus Conference Working Group. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: Diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Radiother Oncol 2015; 117: 559–581.
Creasman W. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):109. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.010, PMID 19345353.
Koh W-J, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Cho KR et al. Uterine neoplasms. Version 1.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw; 2018. Vol. 16. p. 170-99.
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 Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660, PMID 33538338.
Abramowicz JS, Kossoff G, Marsal K, Ter Haar G, International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology Bioeffects and Safety Committee. Executive Board of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Safety Statement, 2000 (reconfirmed 2003). International society of ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology (ISUOG). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(1):100. doi: 10.1002/uog.36, PMID 12528176.
Savelli L, Ceccarini M, Ludovisi M, Fruscella E, De Iaco PA, Salizzoni E, et al. Preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer: transvaginal sonograph vs magnetic. resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(5):560-6. doi: 10.1002/uog.5295, PMID 18398926.
Scaletta G, Dinoi G, Capozzi V, Cianci S, Pelligra S, Ergasti R, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive surgery with laparotomic approach in the treatment of high risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(5):782-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.11.519, PMID 31818527.
Gordon AN, Fleischer AC, Reed GW. Depth of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: preoperative assessment by transvaginal ultrasonography. Gynecol Oncol. 1990;39(3):321-7. doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(90)90260-r, PMID 2258078.
Karlsson B, Norström A, Granberg S, Wikland M. The use of endovaginal ultrasound to diagnose invasion of endometrial carcinoma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1992;2(1):35-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1992.02010035.x, PMID 12797004.
Mascilini F, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Ameye L, Timmerman D, Epstein E. Evaluating myometrial and cervical invasion in women with endometrial cancer: comparing subjective assessment with objective measurement techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(3):353-8. doi: 10.1002/uog.12499, PMID 23640790.
Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, Timmerman D, Van Limbergen E, Vergote I. Endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2005;366(9484):491-505. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67063-8.
Alcázar JL, Orozco R, Martinez-Astorquiza Corral T, Juez L, Utrilla-Layna J, Mínguez JA et al. Transvaginal ultrasound for preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(4):405-13. doi: 10.1002/uog.14905, PMID 26011665.
Alcazar JL, Pineda L, Corral M-A T, Orozco R, Utrilla-Layna J, Juez L, et al. Transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound for assessing myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: a comparison of six different approaches. J Gynecol Oncol (2015) 26(3):201–7. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2015.26.3.201.
Frühauf F, Zikan M, Semeradova I, Dundr P, Nemejcova K, Dusek L, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in assessment of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: subjective assessment versus objective techniques. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:1318203. doi: 10.1155/2017/1318203, PMID 28812010.
Alcázar JL, Gastón B, Navarro B, Salas R, Aranda J, Guerriero S. Transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment of myometrial infiltration in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28(6):e86. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e86, PMID 29027404.
Pineda L, Alcázar JL, Caparrós M, Mıńguez JA, Idoate MA, Quiceno H, et al. Agreement between preoperative transvaginal ultrasound and intraoperative macroscopic examination for assessing myometrial infiltration in low-risk endometrioid carcinoma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(3):369-73. doi: 10.1002/uog.14909, PMID 26033260.
Fischerova D, Frühauf F, Zikan M, Pinkavova I, Kocián R, Dundr P, et al. Factors affecting sonographic preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(5):575-85. doi: 10.1002/uog.13248, PMID 24281994.
Capozzi VA, Merisio C, Rolla M, Pugliese M, Morganelli G, Cianciolo A, et al. Confounding factors of transvaginal ultrasound accuracy in endometrial cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;41(5):779-84. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2020.1799342, PMID 33063589.
Green RW, Valentin L, Alcazar JL, Chiappa V, Erdodi B, Franchi D, et al. Endometrial cancer off-line staging using two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and three-dimensional volume contrast imaging: intermethod agreement, interrater reliability and diagnostic accuracy. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;150(3):438-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.06.027, PMID 30029961.
Ziogas A, Xydias E, Kalantzi S, Papageorgouli D, Liasidi PN, Lamari I, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of 3D ultrasound compared to 2D ultrasound and MRI in the assessment of deep myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer patients: a systematic review. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;61(5):746-54. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2022.06.002, PMID 36088040.
Eriksson LS, Lindqvist PG, Flöter Rådestad A, Dueholm M, Fischerova D, Franchi D, et al. 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(4):476-82. doi: 10.1002/uog.14645, PMID 25092412.