Uterine Cervical Cancer: Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Staging, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Histopathology Findings
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer (CC) ranks as the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women globally. Accurate staging is crucial for treatment planning. Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been validated as a reliable modality for CC staging, limited evidence exists on its accuracy compared to dual International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classifications in an Iranian population. This study addresses this gap by evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of MRI against both clinical FIGO staging systems and the gold standard of histopathology in untreated CC patients. Materials and Methods: A prospective study was conducted on 45 CC patients from January 2021 to December 2023, at tertiary‑care centers in Isfahan, Iran. Clinical FIGO staging and pretreatment MRI were performed, followed by surgery and histopathological examination. MRI’s diagnostic accuracy was compared with clinical FIGO staging and postoperative pathological findings. Results: The overall diagnostic accuracy of MRI for staging cervical carcinoma was 82.20%, with clinical FIGO staging achieving 57.80% accuracy. MRI demonstrated higher sensitivity (82.20%) and positive predictive value (PPV; 97.40%) compared to clinical FIGO. However, both methods showed equal and lower specificity (50%) compared with the postoperative pathological findings. Conclusions: MRI appears to be more effective than FIGO in terms of sensitivity and PPV for staging cervical carcinoma. The present study underlines the need for cautious interpretation of the results and further research due to significant uncertainty in specificity and negative predictive value. Combining FIGO staging and MRI provides a comprehensive assessment essential for effective treatment planning.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
References
World Health Organization. Human Papillomavirus (HPV) andCervical Cancer. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs380/en/. [Last accessed on 2021 July 27].
Bray F, Jemal A, Grey N, Ferlay J, Forman D. Globalcancer transitions according to the Human DevelopmentIndex (2008‑2030): A population‑based study. Lancet Oncol2012;13:790‑801.
Valentini AL, Gui B, Miccò M, Giuliani M, Rodolfino E,Ninivaggi V, et al. MRI anatomy of parametrial extension tobetter identify local pathways of disease spread in cervicalcancer. Diagn Interv Radiol 2016;22:319‑25.
Lee SI, Atri M. 2018 FIGO staging system for uterinecervical cancer: Enter cross‑sectional imaging. Radiology2019;292:15‑24.
Ditto A, Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Evangelisti G, Bogani G,Chiappa V, Martinelli F, et al. Diagnostic accuracy ofmagnetic resonance imaging in the pre‑operative staging ofcervical cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment:A clinical‑surgical‑pathologic comparison. Cancers (Basel)2023;15:2061.
Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO stagingfor carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet2019;145:129‑35.
Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S,Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of thecervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019;145:129‑35.
Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS, Konishi I, Mikami M.Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system.Gynecol Oncol 2019;152:87‑93.
Lu H, Wu Y, Liu X, Huang H, Jiang H, Zhu C, et al. The roleof dynamic contrast‑enhanced magnetic resonance imagingin predicting treatment response for cervical cancer treatedwith concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Manag Res2021;13:6065‑78.
Kodaira T, Fuwa N, Toita T, Nomoto Y, Kuzuya K, Tachibana K,et al. Clinical evaluation using magnetic resonance imaging forpatients with stage III cervical carcinoma treated by radiationalone in multicenter analysis: Its usefulness and limitations inclinical practice. Am J Clin Oncol 2003;26:574‑83.
Lakhman Y, Aherne EA, Jayaprakasam VS, Nougaret S,Reinhold C. Staging of cervical cancer: A practicalapproach using MRI and FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol2023;221:633‑48.
Thomeer MG, Gerestein C, Spronk S, van Doorn HC,van der Ham E, Hunink MG. Clinical examination versusmagnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging ofcervical carcinoma: Systematic review and meta‑analysis. EurRadiol 2013;23:2005‑18.
Micco M, Sala E, Lakhman Y, Hricak H, Vargas HA. Role ofimaging in the pretreatment evaluation of common gynecologicalcancers. Womens Health (Lond) 2014;10:299‑321.
Dhoot NM, Kumar V, Shinagare A, Kataki AC, Barmon D,Bhuyan U. Evaluation of carcinoma cervix using magneticresonance imaging: correlation with clinical FIGO stagingand impact on management. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol2012;56:58‑65.
Nawapun S, Aphinives C, Srisitthiprapha W,Thamronganantasakul K, Temtanakitpaisan A. Correlation ofclinical staging and MRI staging for cervical cancer. Egypt JRadiol Nucl Med 2021;52:162.
Kraljević Z, Visković K, Ledinsky M, Zadravec D, Grbavac I,Bilandzija M, et al. Primary uterine cervical cancer: Correlationof preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and clinicalstaging (FIGO) with histopathology findings. Coll Antropol2013;37:561‑8.
Kumari A, Pankaj S, Nazneen S, Kumari J, Kumari A,Choudhary V, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI with clinicalstaging in cervical cancer. J Indra Gandhi Inst Med Sci2019;5:17‑20.
Shakur A, Lee JYJ, Freeman S. An update on the role of MRIin treatment stratification of patients with cervical cancer.Cancers (Basel) 2023;15:5105.
Zhang W, Chen C, Liu P, Li W, Hao M, Zhao W, et al. Impactof pelvic MRI in routine clinical practice on staging of IB1‑IIA2cervical cancer. Cancer Manag Res 2019;11:3603‑9.
Chen J, Kitzing YX, Lo G. Systematic review‑role of MRI incervical cancer staging. Cancers (Basel) 2024;16:1983.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.

