4.6 Article

The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in staging of vulvar cancer: A retrospective multi-centre study

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 117, 期 1, 页码 82-87

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.12.017

关键词

MRI; Vulvar cancer; Lymph node metastasis; Contrast enhancement; Gynecology; Malignancy

资金

  1. NIHR
  2. ACT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical relevance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the management of primary and recurrent vulvar cancer and to examine the added value of contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI). Methods. The research ethics committee waived informed consent for this study of 49 patients with vulvar cancer (36 primary and 13 recurrent) who underwent MRI before surgery at three major cancer centers from December 2003 to January 2008. CE-MRI was available for 31 patients (20 primary and 11 recurrent). MR images were retrospectively evaluated by three radiologists for tumor size and stage. Lymph nodes with a short axis >5 mm were measured and scored for contour, presence of necrosis, loss of fatty hilum, signal intensity relative to the vulvar lesion, and reader's diagnosis of lymph node metastasis. Scoring was repeated for CE-MRI. Histopathology constituted the reference standard. Results. The size of the vulvar lesion was accurately characterized on MRI in 83% of patients. Accuracy in staging of primary vulvar cancers on unenhanced MRI was 69.4% (n = 36). Adding CE-MRI increased lesion detection and raised staging accuracy from 75% to 85% (n = 20). For groin lymph node metastasis prediction, the ratio of the short- to the long-axis diameter and the reader's diagnosis of lymph node metastasis yielded accuracy of 85% and 87%, respectively, in groin-by-groin analysis. Conclusion. MRI can be useful in accurately assessing the size of vulvar lesion and groin lymph node metastasis. CE-MRI may be of help in improving local staging. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据