Local experience in cervical cancer imaging: Comparison in tumour assessment between TRUS and MRI

Abstract

Objective

The aim of study was to analyze the accuracy of TRUS (transrectal ultrasound) vs. MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and clinical gynecological examination estimation in the evaluation of tumor dimensions.

Methods

The patients inclusion criterion included primarily pathologically squamous cell carcinoma, but excluded were patients who had not undergone BT (brachytherapy) and treated with palliative intent. We offer two types of treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer: (a) radiochemotherapy followed by surgery and (b) exclusive radiochemotherapy. Imaging tests follow the presence of tumor and tumor size (width and thickness). Each examination was performed by a different physician who had no knowledge of the others’ findings. All patients underwent MRI prior to EBRT (external beam radiation therapy) while 18 of them also at the time of the first brachytherapy application. For the analysis we used the r-Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results

In 2013, 26 patients with cervical cancer were included. A total of 44 gynecological examinations were performed, 44 MRIs and 18 TRUSs. For the comparisons prior to EBRT the correlation coefficient between TRUS vs. MRI was r[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]=[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]0.79 for AP and r[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]=[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]0.83 for LL, for GYN vs. MRI was r[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]=[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]0.6 for AP and r[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]=[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]0.75 for LL. Prior to BT for GYN vs. MRI, r values were 0.60 and 0.63 for AP and LL, respectively; for GYN vs. TRUS, r values were 0.56 and 0.78 for AP and LL, respectively.

Conclusions

A high correlation between the three examinations was obtained. As such, TRUS can be considered a suitable method in the evaluation of tumor dimensions.