International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2017
Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Valuable Tool for Predicting Parametrial Invasion in Stage IB1 to IIA2 Cervical Cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Miseon, Suh Dong Hoon, Kim Kidong, Lee Hak Jong, Kim Yong Beom, No Jae Hong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aims of study were to determine the predictive value of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for parametrial invasion (PMI) and to develop a predictive model for PMI in patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer (n = 215) who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2003 and 2014. The presence of PMI from postoperative pathological reports and its association with preoperative MRI findings were evaluated. We developed a predictive model for PMI using independent predictive factors identified by logistic regression and estimated its predictive performance.
RESULTS: Thirty patients (14.0%) had PMI from postoperative pathological reports. Among the preoperative MRI findings, a greater tumor diameter (4.2 vs 2.0 cm; P < 0.001), a larger tumor volume (92.6 vs 12.7 cm; P < 0.001), the presence of PMI (53.3% vs 8.6%; P < 0.001), and upper vaginal involvement (73.3% vs 22.7%; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with PMI. Multivariate analysis identified tumor volume (odds ratio, 7.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.63-18.53; P < 0.001) and PMI (odds ratio, 6.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.31-15.97; P < 0.001) from preoperative MRI findings as independent predictive factors for PMI. Our predictive model demonstrates that the presence of PMI or a tumor volume of greater than 18.0 cm has a higher sensitivity (86.7% vs 53.3%) and lower specificity (74.6% vs 91.4%) than the presence of PMI alone. Specifically, the model's negative predictive value was superior to that of PMI only (97.2% vs 92.3%). In the low-risk group, defined as preoperative MRI findings suggesting no PMI and a tumor volume of 18.0 cm or less, the proportion of false negative cases was just 2.8%.
CONCLUSIONS: When tumor volume with findings suggesting that PMI is considered, preoperative MRI is useful in excluding PMI. A predictive model based on preoperative MRI findings seems to be valuable in identifying potential candidates for less radical surgery in stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer (n = 215) who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2003 and 2014. The presence of PMI from postoperative pathological reports and its association with preoperative MRI findings were evaluated. We developed a predictive model for PMI using independent predictive factors identified by logistic regression and estimated its predictive performance.
RESULTS: Thirty patients (14.0%) had PMI from postoperative pathological reports. Among the preoperative MRI findings, a greater tumor diameter (4.2 vs 2.0 cm; P < 0.001), a larger tumor volume (92.6 vs 12.7 cm; P < 0.001), the presence of PMI (53.3% vs 8.6%; P < 0.001), and upper vaginal involvement (73.3% vs 22.7%; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with PMI. Multivariate analysis identified tumor volume (odds ratio, 7.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.63-18.53; P < 0.001) and PMI (odds ratio, 6.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.31-15.97; P < 0.001) from preoperative MRI findings as independent predictive factors for PMI. Our predictive model demonstrates that the presence of PMI or a tumor volume of greater than 18.0 cm has a higher sensitivity (86.7% vs 53.3%) and lower specificity (74.6% vs 91.4%) than the presence of PMI alone. Specifically, the model's negative predictive value was superior to that of PMI only (97.2% vs 92.3%). In the low-risk group, defined as preoperative MRI findings suggesting no PMI and a tumor volume of 18.0 cm or less, the proportion of false negative cases was just 2.8%.
CONCLUSIONS: When tumor volume with findings suggesting that PMI is considered, preoperative MRI is useful in excluding PMI. A predictive model based on preoperative MRI findings seems to be valuable in identifying potential candidates for less radical surgery in stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer.