Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of lymph node involvement in cervix carcinoma

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Lymphnodes status in cervical carcinoma is important in therapeutic planning, and the role of Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance (MR) is controversial: this paper aims to evaluate their accuracy in diagnosing nodal metastases in patients with cervical carcinoma. We reviewed, retrospectively and blindly, CT and MR of 62 patients, before surgical lymphnode resection: 45 of these patients had pre-surgical chemotherapy. Lymphnodes were defined metastatic by CT and MRI when larger than 1 cm short axis. Both diagnoses by the original routine reports and by a second blind expert were compared with pathological reports. Results: combining the reading results of both observers CT showed a sensitivity of 64.6% and specificity of 93.3%; MRI a sensitivity of 72.9% and specificity of 93.1%. Positive Predictive Value was 50.8% for CT and 53% for MR, while Negative Predictive Value was 96% both for CT and MR. The expert Radiologist reviewing the films obtained better results. Inter-observer variability in the lower quadrants was high for each imaging technique (kappa for CT: 0.71; kappa for MRI: 0.84). Both imaging techniques showed similar screening accuracy in identifying nodal metastases. The radiologist’s experience is important in determinig the performance of the imaging technique. Anyway, CT and MRI are only moderately sensitive for detection of nodal metastases and the clinical impact of their results in patient’s management is limited.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reinhold C, Gallix BP, Ascher SM (1997) Uterus and cervix. In: Semelka RC, Ascher SM, Reinhold C (eds) MRI of the abdomen and pelvis: a text atlas. Wiley-Liss, New York, pp 585–660

    Google Scholar 

  2. McCarthy S, Hricak H (1997) The uterus and vagina. In: Higgins CB, Hricak H, Helms CA (eds) Magnetic resonance imaging of the body, 3rd edn. Lippincott-Raven, New York, NY, pp 761–814

    Google Scholar 

  3. FIGO Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynaecological Cancer (2001) Boyle P, la Vecchia C, Walker A (eds) J Epidemiol Biostat vol 6, no.1

  4. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, Perego P, Favini G, Ferri L, Mangioni C (1997) Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 350:535–540

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peters WA III, Liu PY, Barrett RJ II, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS, Souhami L, Grigsby P, Gordon W Jr, Alberts DS (2000) Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18:1606–1613

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Institutes of health Consensus Conference on cervical cancer (1996) J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs 21:1–148

    Google Scholar 

  7. Togashi K, Morikawa K, Kataoka ML, Konishi J (1998) Cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 8:391–397

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ozsarlak O, Tjalma W, Schepens E, Corthouts B, Op de Beeck B, Van Marck E, Parizel PM, De Schepper AM (2003) The correlation of preoperative CT, MR imaging, and clinical staging (FIGO) with histopathology findings in primary cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol 13:2338–2345. DOI 10.1007/s00330-003-1928-2

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, Subak L, Segal MR (1997) Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta analysis. JAMA 278:1096–1101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Carrington BM (2004) Lymph node metastases. In: Husband JE, Reznek RH (eds) Imaging in oncology, vol. 2, chapter 39, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 999–1022

    Google Scholar 

  11. Steinkamp HJ, Cornehl M, Hosten N, Pegios W, Vogl T, Felix R (1995) Cervical lymphoadenopathy: ratio of long- to short-axis diameter as a predictor of malignancy. Br J Radiol 68:266–270

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. American Joint Committee on Cancer (1988) Manual for staging of cancer, 3rd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 151–153

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sobin L, Wittekind C (1997) TNM classification of malignant tumors. Wiley, New York, pp 131–164

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chung CK, Nahhas WA, Zaino R, Stryker JA, Mortel R (1981) Histologic grade and lymph node metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 12:348–354

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Nagell JR Jr, Roddick JW Jr, Lwin DM (1971) The staging of cervical cancer: inevitable discrepancies between clinical staging and pathological findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 110:973–978

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tanaka Y, Sawada S, Murata T (1984) Relationship between lymph node metastases and prognosis in patients irradiated postoperatively for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Acta Radiol Oncol 23:455–459

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wiener JI, Chako AC, Merten CW, Gross S, Coffey EL, Stein HL (1986) Breast and axillary tissue MR imaging: correlation of signal intensities and relaxation times with pathologic findings. Radiology 160:299–305

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weissleder R, Elizondo G, Wittenberg J, Lee AS, Josephson L, Brady TJ (1990) Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide: an intravenous contrast agent for assessing lymph node with MR imaging. Radiology 175:494–498

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D et al (2001) Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology 218:776–782

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Camilien L, Gordon D, Fruchter RG, Maiman M, Byce JG (1988) Predictive value of computerized tomography in the presurgical evaluation of primary carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 30:209–215

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Creasman WT, Kohler MF (2004) Is lymph vascular space involvement an independent prognostic facotr in early cervical cancer?. Gynecol Oncol 92:525–529. DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.11.020

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Henriksen E (1949) The lymphatic spread of carcinoma of the cervix and of the body of the uterus—a study of 420 necropsies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 58:924–942

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Buchsbaum HJ (1979) Extrapelvic lymph node metastasis in cervical carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 133:814–824

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sakuragi N, Satoh C, Takeda N et al (1999) Incidence and distribution pattern of pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with stages Ib, IIa, and IIb cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer 85:1547–1554

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Williams AD, Cousins C, Soutter WP et al (2001) Detection of pelvic lymph node metastases in gynaecologic malignancy: a comparison of CT, MR imaging, and Positron Emission Tomography. Am J Roentgenol 177:343–348

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Barranger E, Grahek D, Cortez A, Talbot JN, Uzan S, Darai E (2003) Laparoscopic sentinel lymph node procedure using a combination of Patent Blue and Radioisotope in women with cervical carcinoma. Cancer 97:3003–3009. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11423

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Marchiolè P, Buénerd A, Scoazec JY, Dargent D, Mathevet P (2004) Sentinel lymph node biopsy is not accurate in predicting lymph node status for patients with cervical carcinoma. Cancer 100:2154–2159. DOI 10.1002/cncr.20212

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Massimo Bellomi & Giuseppe Viale

  2. Division of Radiology, European Institute of Oncology, 435, Via Ripamonti, 20141, Milano, Italy

    Massimo Bellomi, Guido Bonomo & Gaetano Villa

  3. Department of Gynaecology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

    Fabio Landoni, Luca Bocciolone & Angelo Maggioni

  4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

    Maria E. Leon

  5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

    Giuseppe Viale

Authors
  1. Massimo Bellomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guido Bonomo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabio Landoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gaetano Villa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria E. Leon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luca Bocciolone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Angelo Maggioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giuseppe Viale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimo Bellomi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bellomi, M., Bonomo, G., Landoni, F. et al. Accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of lymph node involvement in cervix carcinoma. Eur Radiol 15, 2469–2474 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2847-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2847-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation