Transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment of myometrial infiltration in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Alcázar JL (1), Gastón B (2), Navarro B (3), Salas R (4), Aranda J (5), Guerriero S (6).
(1) Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, School of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
(2) Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
(3) Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, General Hospital, Lanzarote, Spain.
(4) Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital La Inmaculada, Huércal-Overa, Spain.
(5) Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Badajoz, Spain.
(6) Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting myometrial infiltration (MI) in endometrial carcinoma.
An extensive search of papers comparing TVS and MRI in assessing MI in endometrial cancer was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Database from January 1989 to January 2017. Quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.
Our extended search identified 747 citations but after exclusions we finally included in the meta-analysis 8 articles. The risk of bias for most studies was low for most 4 domains assessed in QUADAS-2.
Overall, pooled estimated sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing deep MI were 75% (95% confidence interval [CI]=67%-82%) and 82% (95% CI=75%-93%) for TVS, and 83% (95% CI=76%-89%) and 82% (95% CI=72%-89%) for MRI, respectively. No statistical differences were found when comparing both methods (p=0.314). Heterogeneity was low for sensitivity and high for specificity for TVS and MRI.
MRI showed a better sensitivity than TVS for detecting deep MI in women with endometrial cancer. However, the difference observed was not statistically significant.
CITATION J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;28(6):e86. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e86