Can maximum, mean or minimum ADC values of the cervix-parametrium boundary estimate parametrial invasion for cervical carcinoma?

Abstract

Purpose: Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), which is quantified by apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), can predict tissue microstructure. It has become an essential part of the gynecological magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol. In our study it was aimed to evaluate the value of the maximum, mean, and minimum ADC values of the cervix-parametrium boundary to estimate parametrial invasion for cervix carcinoma. Material and Method: Totally 50 patients with cervical carcinoma, 18 of which had no parametrial invasion (4811-year-old) and 32 had parametrial invasion (5812-year-old) according to conventional T2 weighted imaging were enrolled. Maximum, mean, and minimum ADC values of cervix-parametrium boundary of primary tumors were statistically compared between the groups without and with parametrial invasion. The diagnostic performances of the maximum, mean and minimum ADC values were evaluated by ROC analysis in terms of estimating parametrial invasion. Results: The mean maximum, mean and minimum ADC values were lower for the patients with parametrial invasion. However, only the minimum ADC values had statistically significant differences between the groups. ROC analysis showed an AUC value of 0.726 for minimum ADC in estimating parametrial invasion. A minimum ADC cut-off value of 0.553x10-3 mm2/s had a sensitivity of 63%, specificity of 73%, negative predictive value of 52% and positive predictive value of 80% and accuracy of 66%. Conclusions: ADC values can be applied for the determination of parametrial invasion of cervical carcinoma. Lower minimum ADC values obtained from cervix-parametrium boundary of primary cervical carcinoma may help parametrial invasion. Especially positive predictive value of the cervix-parametrium boundary ADC is remarkable.

Keywords

• apparent diffusion coefficient
• cervix carcinoma
• diffusion-weighted imaging
• magnetic resonance imaging
• parametrial invasion

References

1. 1. Salib MY, Russell JHB, Stewart VR, et al. 2018 FIGO Staging Classification for Cervical Cancer: Added Benefits of Imaging. Radiographics. 2020; 40(6):1807-22.
2. 2. Jolly S, Uppal S, Bhatla N, Johnston C, Maturen K. Improving Global Outcomes in Cervical Cancer: The Time Has Come for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging to Formally Incorporate Advanced Imaging. J Glob Oncol. 2018; 4:1-6.
3. 3. Green JA, Kirwan JM, Tierney JF, et al. Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2001; 358(9284):781-86.
4. 4. Ma C, Zhang Y, Li R, Mao H, Liu P. Risk of parametrial invasion in women with early stage cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018; 297(3):573-80.
5. 5. Delgado G, Bundy BN, Fowler WC Jr, et al. A prospective surgical pathological study of stage I squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol. 1989; 35(3):314-20.
6. 6. Peters WA, Liu PY, Barrett RJ, et al. 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. 2000; 18(8):1606-13.
7. 7. Lukka H, Hirte H, Fyles A, et al. Concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for cervical cancer a meta-analysis. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2002; 14(3):203-12.
8. 8. Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, Chang YC, Winkler ML, Stern JL. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology. 1988; 166:623-31.

9. 9. Kim SH, Choi BI, Lee HP, et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR findings. Radiology. 1990; 175:45-51.
10. 10. Koyama T, Togashi K. Functional MRI of the woman pelvis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007; 25:1101e12.
11. 11. Xue H, Ren C, Yang J, et al. Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient for the assessment of local aggressiveness of cervical carcer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014; 290:341e8.
12. 12. Charles-Edwards EM, Messiou C, Morgan VA, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in cervical carcer with an endovaginal technique: potential value for improving tumor detection in stage Ia and Ib1 disease. Radiology. 2008; 249:541e50.
13. 13. Russo L, Pasciuto T, Lupinelli M, et al. The value of MRI in quantification of parametrial invasion and association with prognosis in locally advanced cervical cancer: the "PLACE" study. Eur Radiol. Published online November 20, 2023.
14. 14. Di Paola V, Perillo F, Gui B, et al. Detection of parametrial invasion in women with uterine cervical cancer using diffusion tensor imaging at 1.5T MRI. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022; 103(10):472-78.
15. 15. Song J, Hu Q, Ma Z, Zhang J, Chen T. Value of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR in predicting parametrial invasion in cervical stromal ring focally disrupted stage IB-IIA cervical cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019; 44(9):3166-74.
16. 16. Kuang F, Ren J, Zhong Q, Liyuan F, Huan Y, Chen Z. The value of apparent diffusion coefficient in the assessment of cervical cancer. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23(4):1050-58.
17. 17. Downey K, Riches SF, Morgan VA, et al. Relationship between imaging biomarkers of stage I cervical cancer and poor-prognosis histologic features: quantitative histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted MR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200(2):314-20.
18. 18. Qu JR, Qin L, Li X, et al. Predicting Parametrial Invasion in Cervical Carcinoma (Stages IB1, IB2, and IIA): Diagnostic Accuracy of T2-Weighted Imaging Combined With DWI at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 210(3):677-84.