Alcazar Juan Luis, Pineda Laura, Martinez-Astorquiza Corral Txanton, Orozco Rodrigo, Utrilla-Layna Jesús, Juez Leire, Jurado Matías
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra School of Medicine, Pamplona, Spain.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital de Cruces, Bilbao, Spain.
J Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jul;26(3):201-7. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2015.26.3.201.
To compare the diagnostic performance of six different approaches for assessing myometrial infiltration using ultrasound in women with carcinoma of the corpus uteri.
Myometrial infiltration was assessed by two-dimensional (2D) transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound in 169 consecutive women with well (G1) or moderately (G2) differentiated endometrioid type endometrial carcinoma. In 74 of these women three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound was also performed. Six different techniques for myometrial infiltration assessment were evaluated. The impression of examiner and Karlsson's criteria were assessed prospectively. Endometrial thickness, tumor/uterine 3D volume ratio, tumor distance to myometrial serosa (TDS), and van Holsbeke's subjective model were assessed retrospectively. All subjects underwent surgical staging within 1 week after ultrasound evaluation. Definitive histopathological data regarding myometrial infiltration was used as gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity for all approaches were calculated and compared using McNemar test.
The impression of examiner and subjective model performed similarly (sensitivity 79.5% and 80.5%, respectively; specificity 89.6% and 90.3%, respectively). Both methods had significantly better sensitivity than Karlsson's criteria (sensitivity 31.8%, p<0.05) and endometrial thickness (sensitivity 47.7%, p<0.05), and better specificity than tumor/uterine volume ratio (specificity 28.3%, p<0.05) and TDS (specificity 41.5%, p<0.05).
Subjective impression seems to be the best approach for assessing myometrial infiltration in G1 or G2 endometrioid type endometrial cancer by transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound. The use of mathematical models and other objective 2D and 3D measurement techniques do not improve diagnostic performance.
比较六种不同方法利用超声评估子宫体癌患者肌层浸润情况的诊断效能。
对169例连续的高分化(G1)或中分化(G2)子宫内膜样型子宫内膜癌患者,采用二维(2D)经阴道或经直肠超声评估肌层浸润情况。其中74例患者还接受了三维(3D)超声检查。评估了六种不同的肌层浸润评估技术。前瞻性评估检查者的印象和卡尔森标准。回顾性评估子宫内膜厚度、肿瘤/子宫三维体积比、肿瘤距肌层浆膜的距离(TDS)以及范霍尔贝克主观模型。所有受试者在超声评估后1周内接受手术分期。将关于肌层浸润的确切组织病理学数据用作金标准。计算所有方法的敏感性和特异性,并使用麦克尼马尔检验进行比较。
检查者的印象和主观模型表现相似(敏感性分别为79.5%和80.5%;特异性分别为89.6%和90.3%)。这两种方法的敏感性均显著高于卡尔森标准(敏感性31.8%,p<0.05)和子宫内膜厚度(敏感性47.7%,p<0.05),特异性均高于肿瘤/子宫体积比(特异性28.3%,p<0.05)和TDS(特异性41.5%,p<0.05)。
主观印象似乎是经阴道或经直肠超声评估G1或G2子宫内膜样型子宫内膜癌肌层浸润的最佳方法。使用数学模型和其他客观的二维和三维测量技术并不能提高诊断效能。