MRI versus clinical assessment in staging and response evaluation in locally advanced cervix cancer patients treated with concurrent chemo-radiation in a tertiary cancer center: a prospective study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20164826Keywords:
Cancer cervix, FIGO stage, MRI, Treatment responseAbstract
Background: Carcinoma cervix is staged most commonly with FIGO staging even though it has a number of pitfalls, for standardization of treatment and epidemiological purpose. The objectives of this prospective study are to evaluate the role of MRI in staging of locally advanced cervix cancer and correlate with the FIGO staging and to assess the role of MRI in evaluating treatment response.
Methods: 58 biopsy proved locally advanced carcinoma cervix patients who satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria from January 2014 to October 2015 were recruited. After the standard pretreatment evaluation including MRI abdomen and pelvis patients were started on concurrent chemo-radiation. Pelvic External beam radiation (EBRT) to a dose of 45Gy/23 fractions for a period of 4.5 weeks with cisplatin 40mg/m2 weekly once. Followed by intracavitary brachytherapy HDR weekly once 7Gy/fraction x 3 fractions. Treatment response assessed as per RECIST criteria. As a part of follow up, three monthly clinical evaluation and 4-6 months MRI evaluation were done.
Results: Agreement between MRI and clinical stage was evaluated by calculating the kappa value as the measure of agreement. The kappa value obtained was 0.18 which showed poor agreement between the two, while comparing clinical and MRI assessment with regard to treatment response, the kappa value obtained was 0.08 signifying poor agreement.
Conclusions: Correlation of FIGO and MRI staging reveals significant discordance between the two and on further evaluation it is seen that MRI staging correlates well with the local recurrence of the disease.
References
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69-90.
World Cancer Research Fund International. 2012 September 22nd, 2015]. Available from: http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/worldwide-data.
National Cancer Registry Programme. Available from: www.ncrpindia.org _ALL_NCRP_REPORTS_HBCR_REPORT_2007_2011_ALL_CONTENT_ALL_PDF_Chapter11.
Cervical Cancer; Estimated Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/old/FactSheets/cancers/cervix-new.asp.
Narayan K, McKenzie AF, Hicks RJ, Fisher R, Bernshaw D, Bau S. Relation between FIGO stage, primary tumor volume, and presence of lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients referred for radiotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13:657-63.
Bipat S, Glas AS, van der Velden J, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91(1):59-66.
Eifel PJ, Winter K, Morris M, Levenback C, Grigsby PW, Cooper J, et al. Pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy versus pelvic and para-aortic irradiation for high-risk cervical cancer: an update of radiation therapy oncology group trial (RTOG) 90-01. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(5):872-80.
Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, Grigsby PW, Levenback C, Stevens RE, et al. Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(15):1137-43.
Rose PG, Ali S, Watkins E, Thigpen JT, Deppe G, Clarke-Pearson DL, et al. Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial comparing concurrent single agent cisplatin, cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy, or hydroxyurea during pelvic irradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2804-10.
Lanciano R, Calkins A, Bundy BN, Parham G, Lucci JA, 3rd, Moore DH, et al. Randomized comparison of weekly cisplatin or protracted venous infusion of fluorouracil in combination with pelvic radiation in advanced cervix cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8289-95.
Holtz DO, Dunton C. Traditional management of invasive cervical cancer.Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2002;29:645-657.
Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al. Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1144-53
Sironi S, Villa G, Rossi S, Bocciolone L, Maggioni A, Sonzogni A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of parametrial invasion of carcinoma of the cervix uteri: optimization of the study protocol. La Radiologia medica. 2001;101(6):477-84.
Iwata S, Joja I, Okuno K, Miyagi Y, Sakaguchi Y, Kudo T, et al. Cervical carcinoma with full-thickness stromal invasion: efficacy of dynamic MR imaging in the assessment of parametrial involvement. Radiation medicine. 2002;20(5):247-55.
Rizzo S, Calareso G, Maccagnoni S, Angileri SA, Landoni F, Raimondi S, et al. Pre-operative MR evaluation of features that indicate the need of adjuvant therapies in early stage cervical cancer patients. A single-centre experience. Euro J of Radiology. 2014;83(5):858-64.
Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F, Reinhold C, Thomas G, Amendola M, et al. 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. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(36):5687-94.
Janus CL MD, Moore S. Staging of cervical carcinoma: Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Clin Imaging. 1989.13:114.
Kim WY, Chang SJ, Chang KH, Yoo SC, Lee EJ, Ryu HS. Reliability of magnetic resonance imaging for bladder or rectum invasion in cervical cancer. The Journal of reproductive medicine. 2011;56(1112):485-90.
Rockall AG, Ghosh S, Alexander-Sefre F, Babar S, Younis MT, Naz S, et al. Can MRI rule out bladder and rectal invasion in cervical cancer to help select patients for limited EUA? Gynecologic oncology. 2006;101(2):244-9.
Vandecasteele K, Delrue L, Lambert B, Makar A, Lambein K, Denys H, et al. Value of magnetic resonance and (1) (8)FDG PET-CT in predicting tumor response and resectability of primary locally advanced cervical cancer after treatment with intensity-modulated arc therapy: a prospective pathology-matched study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(4):630-7.
Kundu S, Chopra S, Verma A, Mahantshetty U, Engineer R, Shrivastava SK. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer: current evidence and future directions. J Cancer Res Ther. 2012;8(1):11-8.
Kim HS, Kim CK, Park BK, Huh SJ, Kim B. Evaluation of therapeutic response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(1):187-93.
Liu Y, Bai R, Sun H, Liu H, Zhao X, Li Y. Diffusion-weighted imaging in predicting and monitoring the response of uterine cervical cancer to combined chemoradiation. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(11):1067-74.
McCarthy S, Hricak H. The uterus and vagina. In: Higgins CB, Hricak H, Helms CA, eds. Magnetic resonance imaging of the body. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Lippincott-Raven, 1997;761-814.
Togashi K, Morikawa K, Kataoka ML, Konishi J. Cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 8:391-397.
Reinhold C, Gallix BP, Ascher SM. Uterus and cervix. In: Semelka RC, Ascher SM, Reinhold C, eds. MRI of the abdomen and pelvis: a text atlas. New York, NY: Wiley-Liss. 1997; 585-660
Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell B, Azizi L, Stern JL. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:43-50
Swift PS. Carcinoma of the uterine cervix. In: Liebel SA, Phillips TL, eds. Clinical radiation oncology. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders, 1998:799-841.
Lagasse LD, Creasman WT, Shingleton HM, Ford JH, Blessing JA. Results and complications of operative staging in cervical cancer: experience of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol 1980;9(1):90-8.
Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T, Bergman A, Brkljacic B, Danza F, et al. Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1102-10.
Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, Azizi L, Stern JL. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86(1):43-50.
Ozsarlak O, Tjalma W, Schepens E, Corthouts B, Op de Beeck B, Van Marck E, et al. The correlation of preoperative CT, MR imaging, and clinical staging (FIGO) with histopathology findings in primary cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:2338-45.
Hancke K, Heilmann V, Straka P, Kreienberg R, Kurzeder C. Pretreatment staging of cervical cancer: is imaging better than palpation? Role of CT and MRI in preoperative staging of cervical cancer: single institution results for 255 patients Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2856-61
Kaur H, Silverman PM, Iyer RB, Verschraegen CF, Eifel PJ, Charnsangavej C. Diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of cervical cancer. AJR. 2003;180:1621-31.
Flueckiger F, Ebner F, Poschauko H, Tamussino K, Einspieler R, Ranner G. Cervical cancer: serial MR imaging before and after primary RT- a 2 year follow-up study. Radiology. 1992;184:89-93.
Ebner F, Kressel HY, Mintz MC, et al. Tumor recurrence versus fibrosis in the female pelvis: differentian with MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology. 1988;166:333-40.
Sironi S, Belloni C, Taccagni G, Del Maschio A. Invasive cervical carcinoma: MR imaging after preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology. 1991;190:719-22.
Kinkel K, Ariche M, Tardivon AA, et al. Differentiation between recurrent tumor and benign conditions after treatment of gynecologic pelvic carcinoma: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging. Radiology. 1997;204:55-63
