Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Many publications have examined the relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and tumor grade in endometrial cancer. Nevertheless, none were designed to evaluate according to the histopathological type of endometrioid and non-endometrioid tumors.

Purpose

To evaluate the role of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in the differential diagnosis of endometrioid and non-endometrioid cancer of the uterus, by comparing them with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings.

Material and Methods

Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. The MRI findings of 63 patients with endometrial cancer were retrospectively evaluated and divided into four groups: Grades I, II, and III endometrioid tumors, and non-endometrioid tumors. ADC values, DWI quotients (b = 1000 s/mm²), and post-contrast signal intensities between lesions and the myometrium (b1000q-Cq values) were evaluated. The one-way-ANOVA, student’s t-test, Kruskal–Wallis test, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used for statistical evaluation.

Results

Mean ADC values were 0.86 ± 0.14 in Grade I, 0.80 ± 0.7 in Grade II, 0.71 ± 0.14 in Grade III for endometrioid tumors, and 0.70 ± 0.12 in non-endometrioid tumors. There was a significant difference in ADC values between Grade I and Grade III (P = 0.006), and non-endometrioid tumors (P = 0.003). The difference was also significant between Grades I + II and Grade III (P = 0.009), and non-endometrioid tumors (P = 0.004). Besides, there was a significant difference between endometrioid and non-endometrioid tumors (P = 0.022). However, when considering b1000q (F = 0.640, P = 0.593) and Cq (χ²= 6.233; P = 0.101), no significant difference was detected among the groups.

Conclusion

The difference in ADC values between the endometrioid and non-endometrioid tumors was statistically significant. However, the difference in DWI and contrast-enhancement findings were not statistically significant. Furthermore, the mean ADC values had an inverse relationship with tumor grade in the endometrioid cancer group.

Keywords

Endometrial cancer endometrioid tumor non-endometriod tumor diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)uterus tumor grade

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Tamai

Koyama

Saga

. Diffusion weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26: 682–687.

Nakai

Matsuki

Inada

. Detection and evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with gynecologic malignancies using body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008; 32: 764–768.

Inada

Matsuki

Nakai

. Body diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer: Is it helpful in the detection of cancer in non-enhanced MR imaging? Eur J Radiol 2009; 70: 122–127.

Seo

Kim

Choi

. B. Endometrial cancer: utility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with background body signal suppression at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37: 1151–1159.

Kishimoto K, Tajima S, Maeda I, et al. Endometrial cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with tumor cellularity and tumor grade. Acta Radiol 2015. DOI: 10.1177/0284185115612249.

Sugahara

Korogi

Kochi

. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with eco-planner technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 9: 53–60.

Pertovaara

Dastidar

. ADC measurements in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma: a DWI and cellularity study. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: 158–164.

Rechichi

Galimberti

Signorelli

. Endometrial cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with tumor grade, depth of myometrial invasion, and presence of lymph node metastases. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 256–262.

Whittaker

Coady

Culver

. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of female pelvic tumors: a pictorial review. Radiographics 2009; 29: 759–774.

10.

Fujii

Matsusue

Kigawa

. Diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating benign and malignant uterine endometrial cavity lesions: initial results. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 384–389.

11.

Shen

Chiou

Wang

. Diffusion-weighted single-shot echo-planar imaging with parallel technique in assessment of endometrial cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: 481–488.

12.

Punwani

. Diffusion-weighted imaging of female pelvic cancers: concepts and clinical applications. Eur J Radiol 2011; 78: 21–29.

13.

Colombo

Preti

Landoni

. Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 33–38.

14.

Reynaers

Ezendam

Pijnenborg

. Comparable outcome between endometrioid and non-endometrioid tumors in patients with early-stage high-grade endometrial cancer. J Surg Oncol 2015; 111: 790–794.

15.

Creasman

Kohler

Odicino

. Prognosis of papillary serous, clear cell, and grade 3 stage I carcinoma of the endometrium. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 95: 593–596.

16.

Felix

Stone

Bowser

. Comparison of survival outcomes between patients with malignant mixed mullerian tumors and high-grade endometrioid, clear cell, and papillary serous endometrial cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21: 877–884.

17.

Ayeni

Bakkum-Gamez

Mariani

. Comparative outcomes assessment of uterine grade 3 endometrioid, serous, and clear cell carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 129: 478–485.

18.

Cirisano

Jr Robboy

Dodge

. The outcome of stage I–II clinically and surgically staged papillary serous and clear cell endometrial cancers when compared with endometrioid carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2000; 77: 55–65.

19.

Woo

Cho

Kim

. Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient map of diffusion-weighted MRI in endometrial cancer: a preliminary correlation study with histological grade. Acta Radiol 2014; 55: 1270–1277.

20.

Nakamura

Joja

Fukushima

. The preoperative SUVmax is superior to ADCmin of the primary tumour as a predictor of disease recurrence and survival in patients with endometrial cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013; 40: 52–60.

21.

Bharwani

Miquel

Sahdev

. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the assessment of tumour grade in endometrial cancer. Br J Radiol 2011; 84: 997–1004.

22.

Takeuchi

Matsuzaki

Nishitani

. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of endometrialcancer: differentiation from benign endometrial lesions and preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion. Acta Radiol 2009; 50: 947–953.

23.

Pecorelli

. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 105: 103–104.

24.

Tang

Dundamadappa

Thangasamy

. Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with Ki-67 proliferation index in grading meningioma. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 1303–1308.

25.

Hoffman, Barbara

Endometrial Cancer. In: Hoffman

Schorge

Schaffer

(eds). Williams Gynecology , 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Medical, 2012, pp. 817–839.

26.

Sherman

. Theories of endometrial carcinogenesis: a multidisciplinary approach. Mod Pathol 2000; 13: 295–308.

27.

Fukunaga

Fujii

Inoue

. Accuracy of semiquantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for differentiating type II from type I endometrial carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 41: 1662–1668.

28.

Ippolito

Minutolo

Cadonici

. Endometrial cancer: diagnostic value of quantitative measurements of microvascular changes with DCE-MR imaging. MAGMA 2014; 27: 531–538.

Role of diffusion-weighted MRI in the differential diagnosis of endometrioid and non-endometrioid cancer of the uterus