Early invasive cervical cancer: Tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study

Donald G. Mitchell, Bradley Snyder, Fergus Coakley, Caroline Reinhold, Gillian Thomas, Marco Amendola, Lawrence H. Schwartz, Paula Woodward, Harpreet Pannu, Hedvig Hricak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

179 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and clinical examination for delineating early cervical cancer and for measuring tumor size. Patients and Methods: A 25-center study enrolled 208 patients with biopsy-proven invasive cervical cancer for MRI and CT before attempted curative radical hysterectomy. Each imaging study was interpreted prospectively by one onsite radiologist and retrospectively by four independent offsite radiologists, who were all blinded to surgical, histopathologic, and other imaging findings. Likelihood of cervical stromal and uterine body involvement was rated on a 5-point scale. Tumor size measurements were attempted in three axes. Surgical pathology was the standard of reference. Results: Neither MRI nor CT was accurate for evaluating cervical stroma. For uterine body involvement, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was higher for MRI than for CT for both prospective (0.80 v 0.66, respectively; P = .01) and retrospective (0.68 v 0.57, respectively; P = .02) readings. Retrospective readers could measure diameter by CT in 35% to 73% of patients and by MRI in 79% to 94% of patients. Prospective readers had the highest Spearman correlation coefficient with pathologic measurement for MRI (rs = 0.54), followed by CT (rs = 0.45) and clinical examination (r s = 0.37; P <.0001 for all). Spearman correlation of multiobserver diameter measurements for MRI (rs = 0.58; P <.0001) was double that for CT (rs = 0.27; P = .03). Conclusion: In patients with cervical cancer, MRI is superior to CT and clinical examination for evaluating uterine body involvement and measuring tumor size, but no method was accurate for evaluating cervical stroma.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5687-5694
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume24
Issue number36
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 20 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Tomography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Neoplasms
Surgical Pathology
Hysterectomy
ROC Curve
Reading
Biopsy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Early invasive cervical cancer : Tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study. / Mitchell, Donald G.; Snyder, Bradley; Coakley, Fergus; Reinhold, Caroline; Thomas, Gillian; Amendola, Marco; Schwartz, Lawrence H.; Woodward, Paula; Pannu, Harpreet; Hricak, Hedvig.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 24, No. 36, 20.12.2006, p. 5687-5694.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mitchell, Donald G. ; Snyder, Bradley ; Coakley, Fergus ; Reinhold, Caroline ; Thomas, Gillian ; Amendola, Marco ; Schwartz, Lawrence H. ; Woodward, Paula ; Pannu, Harpreet ; Hricak, Hedvig. / Early invasive cervical cancer : Tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006 ; Vol. 24, No. 36. pp. 5687-5694.
@article{c4ff6b666fee47d199e2f0afbca86b34,
title = "Early invasive cervical cancer: Tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and clinical examination for delineating early cervical cancer and for measuring tumor size. Patients and Methods: A 25-center study enrolled 208 patients with biopsy-proven invasive cervical cancer for MRI and CT before attempted curative radical hysterectomy. Each imaging study was interpreted prospectively by one onsite radiologist and retrospectively by four independent offsite radiologists, who were all blinded to surgical, histopathologic, and other imaging findings. Likelihood of cervical stromal and uterine body involvement was rated on a 5-point scale. Tumor size measurements were attempted in three axes. Surgical pathology was the standard of reference. Results: Neither MRI nor CT was accurate for evaluating cervical stroma. For uterine body involvement, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was higher for MRI than for CT for both prospective (0.80 v 0.66, respectively; P = .01) and retrospective (0.68 v 0.57, respectively; P = .02) readings. Retrospective readers could measure diameter by CT in 35{\%} to 73{\%} of patients and by MRI in 79{\%} to 94{\%} of patients. Prospective readers had the highest Spearman correlation coefficient with pathologic measurement for MRI (rs = 0.54), followed by CT (rs = 0.45) and clinical examination (r s = 0.37; P <.0001 for all). Spearman correlation of multiobserver diameter measurements for MRI (rs = 0.58; P <.0001) was double that for CT (rs = 0.27; P = .03). Conclusion: In patients with cervical cancer, MRI is superior to CT and clinical examination for evaluating uterine body involvement and measuring tumor size, but no method was accurate for evaluating cervical stroma.",
author = "Mitchell, {Donald G.} and Bradley Snyder and Fergus Coakley and Caroline Reinhold and Gillian Thomas and Marco Amendola and Schwartz, {Lawrence H.} and Paula Woodward and Harpreet Pannu and Hedvig Hricak",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4799",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "5687--5694",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "36",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Early invasive cervical cancer

T2 - Tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study

AU - Mitchell, Donald G.

AU - Snyder, Bradley

AU - Coakley, Fergus

AU - Reinhold, Caroline

AU - Thomas, Gillian

AU - Amendola, Marco

AU - Schwartz, Lawrence H.

AU - Woodward, Paula

AU - Pannu, Harpreet

AU - Hricak, Hedvig

PY - 2006/12/20

Y1 - 2006/12/20

N2 - Purpose: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and clinical examination for delineating early cervical cancer and for measuring tumor size. Patients and Methods: A 25-center study enrolled 208 patients with biopsy-proven invasive cervical cancer for MRI and CT before attempted curative radical hysterectomy. Each imaging study was interpreted prospectively by one onsite radiologist and retrospectively by four independent offsite radiologists, who were all blinded to surgical, histopathologic, and other imaging findings. Likelihood of cervical stromal and uterine body involvement was rated on a 5-point scale. Tumor size measurements were attempted in three axes. Surgical pathology was the standard of reference. Results: Neither MRI nor CT was accurate for evaluating cervical stroma. For uterine body involvement, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was higher for MRI than for CT for both prospective (0.80 v 0.66, respectively; P = .01) and retrospective (0.68 v 0.57, respectively; P = .02) readings. Retrospective readers could measure diameter by CT in 35% to 73% of patients and by MRI in 79% to 94% of patients. Prospective readers had the highest Spearman correlation coefficient with pathologic measurement for MRI (rs = 0.54), followed by CT (rs = 0.45) and clinical examination (r s = 0.37; P <.0001 for all). Spearman correlation of multiobserver diameter measurements for MRI (rs = 0.58; P <.0001) was double that for CT (rs = 0.27; P = .03). Conclusion: In patients with cervical cancer, MRI is superior to CT and clinical examination for evaluating uterine body involvement and measuring tumor size, but no method was accurate for evaluating cervical stroma.

AB - Purpose: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and clinical examination for delineating early cervical cancer and for measuring tumor size. Patients and Methods: A 25-center study enrolled 208 patients with biopsy-proven invasive cervical cancer for MRI and CT before attempted curative radical hysterectomy. Each imaging study was interpreted prospectively by one onsite radiologist and retrospectively by four independent offsite radiologists, who were all blinded to surgical, histopathologic, and other imaging findings. Likelihood of cervical stromal and uterine body involvement was rated on a 5-point scale. Tumor size measurements were attempted in three axes. Surgical pathology was the standard of reference. Results: Neither MRI nor CT was accurate for evaluating cervical stroma. For uterine body involvement, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was higher for MRI than for CT for both prospective (0.80 v 0.66, respectively; P = .01) and retrospective (0.68 v 0.57, respectively; P = .02) readings. Retrospective readers could measure diameter by CT in 35% to 73% of patients and by MRI in 79% to 94% of patients. Prospective readers had the highest Spearman correlation coefficient with pathologic measurement for MRI (rs = 0.54), followed by CT (rs = 0.45) and clinical examination (r s = 0.37; P <.0001 for all). Spearman correlation of multiobserver diameter measurements for MRI (rs = 0.58; P <.0001) was double that for CT (rs = 0.27; P = .03). Conclusion: In patients with cervical cancer, MRI is superior to CT and clinical examination for evaluating uterine body involvement and measuring tumor size, but no method was accurate for evaluating cervical stroma.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34247395789&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34247395789&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4799

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4799

M3 - Article

C2 - 17179104

AN - SCOPUS:34247395789

VL - 24

SP - 5687

EP - 5694

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 36

ER -