Published in:
Open Access 01-04-2020 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Pelvis
Can conventional DWI accurately assess the size of endometrial cancer?
Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 4/2020
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
To compare T2-weighted image (T2WI) and conventional Diffusion-weighted image (cDWI) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for sensitivity of qualitative diagnosis and accuracy of tumor size (TS) measurement in endometrial cancer (EC). Meanwhile, the effect of the lesion size itself and tumor grade on the ability of T2WI and cDWI of TS assessment was explored. Ultimately, the reason of deviation on size evaluation was studied.
Materials and methods
34 patients with EC were enrolled. They were all treated with radical hysterectomy and performed MR examinations before operation. Firstly, the sensitivity of T2WI alone and T2WI–DWI in qualitative diagnosis of EC were compared according to pathology. Secondly, TS on T2WI and cDWI described with longitudinal (LD) and horizontal diameter (HD) were compared to macroscopic surgical specimen (MSS) quantitatively in the entire lesions and the subgroup lesions which grouped by postoperative tumor size itself and tumor grade. Thirdly, the discrepancy of mean ADC values (ADC mean) and range ADC values (ADC range) between different zones of EC were explored.
Results
For qualitative diagnosis, the sensitivity of T2WI–DWI (97%) was higher than T2WI alone (85%) (p = 0.046).For TS estimation, no significant difference (PLD = 0.579; PHD = 0.261) was observed between T2WI (LDT2WI = 3.90 cm; HDT2WI = 2.88 cm) and MSS (LD = 4.00 cm; HD = 3.06 cm), whereas TS of cDWI (LDDWI = 3.01 cm; HDDWI = 2.54 cm) were smaller than MSS (PLD = 0.002; PHD = 0.002) in all lesions. In subgroup of tumor with G1 (grade 1) and small lesion (defined as maximum diameter < 3 cm), both T2WI and cDWI were not significantly different from MSS; In subgroup of tumor with G2 + 3 (grade 2 and grade 3) and big lesion (maximum diameter ≥ 3 cm), T2WI matched well with MSS still, but DWI lost accuracy significantly. The result of ADC values between different zones of tumor showed ADC mean of EC rose from central zone to peripheral zone of tumor gradually and ADC range widened gradually.
Conclusion
cDWI can detect EC very sensitively. The TS on cDWI was smaller than the fact for the ECs with G2/3 and big size. The TS of T2WI was in accordance with the actual size for all ECs. The heterogeneity may be responsible for the inaccuracy of cDWI.