Interobserver agreement and prognostic impact for MRI-based 2018 FIGO staging parameters in uterine cervical cancer

Kari S Wagner-Larsen, Njål Lura, Øyvind Salvesen, Mari Kyllesø Halle, David Forsse, Jone Trovik, Noeska Smit, Camilla Krakstad, Ingfrid S Haldorsen, Kari S Wagner-Larsen, Njål Lura, Øyvind Salvesen, Mari Kyllesø Halle, David Forsse, Jone Trovik, Noeska Smit, Camilla Krakstad, Ingfrid S Haldorsen

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the interobserver agreement for MRI-based 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging parameters in patients with cervical cancer and assess the prognostic value of these MRI parameters in relation to other clinicopathological markers.

Methods: This retrospective study included 416 women with histologically confirmed cervical cancer who underwent pretreatment pelvic MRI from May 2002 to December 2017. Three radiologists independently recorded MRI-derived staging parameters incorporated in the 2018 FIGO staging system. Kappa coefficients (κ) for interobserver agreement were calculated. The predictive and prognostic values of the MRI parameters were explored using ROC analyses and Kaplan-Meier with log-rank tests, and analyzed in relation to clinicopathological patient characteristics.

Results: Overall agreement was substantial for the staging parameters: tumor size > 2 cm (κ = 0.80), tumor size > 4 cm (κ = 0.76), tumor size categories (≤ 2 cm; > 2 and ≤ 4 cm; > 4 cm) (κ = 0.78), parametrial invasion (κ = 0.63), vaginal invasion (κ = 0.61), and enlarged lymph nodes (κ = 0.63). Higher MRI-derived tumor size category (≤ 2 cm; > 2 and ≤ 4 cm; > 4 cm) was associated with a stepwise reduction in survival (p ≤ 0.001 for all). Tumor size > 4 cm and parametrial invasion at MRI were associated with aggressive clinicopathological features, and the incorporation of these MRI-based staging parameters improved risk stratification when compared to corresponding clinical assessments alone.

Conclusion: The interobserver agreement for central MRI-derived 2018 FIGO staging parameters was substantial. MRI improved the identification of patients with aggressive clinicopathological features and poor survival, demonstrating the potential impact of MRI enabling better prognostication and treatment tailoring in cervical cancer.

Key points: • The overall interobserver agreement was substantial (κ values 0.61-0.80) for central MRI staging parameters in the 2018 FIGO system. • Higher MRI-derived tumor size category was linked to a stepwise reduction in survival (p ≤ 0.001 for all). • MRI-derived tumor size > 4 cm and parametrial invasion were associated with aggressive clinicopathological features, and the incorporation of these MRI-derived staging parameters improved risk stratification when compared to clinical assessments alone.

Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging; Observer variation; Prognosis; Risk assessment; Uterine cervical neoplasms.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Cervical cancer depicted by sagittal (top) and axial oblique (bottom) T2-weighted MRI views in three patients. a A 40-year-old woman with a moderately large cervical cancer (white arrows) with a maximum tumor size of 2.4 cm (dotted line). The tumor is confined to the cervical stroma, and there are no enlarged lymph nodes (2018 FIGO IB2). The patient received primary surgical treatment (radical hysterectomy and salpingectomy) and had no signs of recurrence at 4 years post treatment. b A 23-year-old woman with a large cervical cancer (white arrows) with a maximum tumor size of 6.0 cm (dotted line). The tumor invades the parametrium (short white arrow), and bilateral enlarged pelvic lymph nodes are depicted (black arrows) (2018 FIGO IIIC1). The patient was treated with primary chemoradiation therapy and died from cervical cancer 2.5 years after primary diagnosis. c A 70-year-old woman with a large, irregular cervical cancer (white arrows) that extends to the uterine fundus and the lower third of the vagina. The maximum tumor size is 10.0 cm (dotted line) and tumor invades the parametrium (short white arrows) and both the bladder and rectum (black dotted arrows) (2018 FIGO IVA). The patient received primary chemoradiation therapy and died from cervical cancer 8 months after primary diagnosis. FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier survival curves depicting significantly reduced disease-specific survival in patients with (a) 2009 FIGO stages IB2–IIA and ≥ IIB compared to stages ≤ IB1, (b) higher MRI–derived tumor size categories, (c) clinical tumor size ≤ 4 cm but MRI–derived tumor size > 4 cm, (d) 2009 FIGO stages I–IIA but parametrial invasion at MRI. For each category: total number of cases/number of cases with disease-specific death. FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for prediction of disease-specific death at 5 years after primary diagnosis for MRI–derived tumor size > 2 cm (a), tumor size > 4 cm (b), parametrial invasion (c), vaginal invasion (d), enlarged lymph nodes (defined as pelvic/paraaortic lymph nodes with short-axis diameter > 1 cm) (e), and bladder/rectum invasion (f), for the three readers and the consensus reading. p values refer to the test of equal AUC values across readers and consensus reading. For the pairwise comparisons, only significant p values are given (after Holm–Bonferroni correction: p < 0.008)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Time-dependent ROC curves for prediction of disease-specific death at 5 years after primary diagnosis for MRI–derived tumor size > 2 cm, tumor size > 4 cm, parametrial invasion, vaginal invasion, enlarged lymph nodes (defined as pelvic/paraaortic lymph nodes with short-axis diameter > 1 cm), and bladder/rectum invasion (consensus reading for all variables). p values refer to the test of equal AUC values across the MRI–derived staging parameters. For the pairwise comparisons, only significant p values are given (after Holm–Bonferroni correction: p < 0.005)

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 10.3322/caac.21660
    1. Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;143(Suppl 2):22–36. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12611.
    1. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105:103–104. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012.
    1. Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, et al. Cervical cancer, Version 3.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17:64–84. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0001.
    1. Berek JS, Matsuo K, Grubbs BH, et al. Multidisciplinary perspectives on newly revised 2018 FIGO staging of cancer of the cervix uteri. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019;30:e40. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e40.
    1. Wright JD, Matsuo K, Huang Y, et al. Prognostic performance of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics cervical cancer staging guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:49–57. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003311.
    1. de Gregorio A, Widschwendter P, Ebner F, et al. Influence of the new FIGO classification for cervical cancer on patient survival: a retrospective analysis of 265 histologically confirmed cases with FIGO stages IA to IIB. Oncology. 2020;98:91–97. doi: 10.1159/000503149.
    1. Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS, Konishi I, Mikami M. Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152:87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.026.
    1. Wagner AE, Pappas L, Ghia AJ, Gaffney DK. Impact of tumor size on survival in cancer of the cervix and validation of stage IIA1 and IIA2 subdivisions. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:517–521. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.03.008.
    1. Lee JH, Lee SW, Kim JR, et al. Tumour size, volume, and marker expression during radiation therapy can predict survival of cervical cancer patients: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of KROG 16-01. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;147:577–584. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.09.036.
    1. Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schmeler KM, et al. Parametrial involvement in radical hysterectomy specimens for women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:93–99. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ab474d.
    1. Canaz E, Ozyurek ES, Erdem B, et al. Preoperatively assessable clinical and pathological risk factors for parametrial involvement in surgically treated FIGO stage IB-IIA cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27:1722–1728. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001060.
    1. Koyama T, Tamai K, Togashi K. Staging of carcinoma of the uterine cervix and endometrium. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2009–2019. doi: 10.1007/s00330-006-0555-0.
    1. Manganaro L, Lakhman Y, Bharwani N et al (2021) Staging, recurrence and follow-up of uterine cervical cancer using MRI: updated guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology after revised FIGO staging 2018. Eur Radiol. 10.1007/s00330-020-07632-9
    1. Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2018;127:404–416. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.03.003.
    1. Thomeer MG, Gerestein C, Spronk S, van Doorn HC, van der Ham E, Hunink MG. Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2005–2018. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2783-4.
    1. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Magnetic resonance imaging for detection of parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature between 2012 and 2016. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:530–541. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-4958-x.
    1. Zhang W, Zhang J, Yang J, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:1292–1298. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000169.
    1. Bourgioti C, Chatoupis K, Rodolakis A, et al. Incremental prognostic value of MRI in the staging of early cervical cancer: a prospective study and review of the literature. Clin Imaging. 2016;40:72–78. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.09.012.
    1. Salvo G, Odetto D, Saez Perrotta MC, et al. Measurement of tumor size in early cervical cancer: an ever-evolving paradigm. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30:1215–1223. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001436.
    1. Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F, et al. Early invasive cervical cancer: MRI and CT predictors of lymphatic metastases in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.005.
    1. Qu JR, Qin L, Li X, et al. Predicting parametrial invasion in cervical carcinoma (stages IB1, IB2, and IIA): diagnostic accuracy of T2-weighted imaging combined with DWI at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210:677–684. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18104.
    1. Shin YR, Rha SE, Choi BG, Oh SN, Park MY, Byun JY. Uterine cervical carcinoma: a comparison of two- and three-dimensional T2-weighted turbo spin-echo MR imaging at 3.0 T for image quality and local-regional staging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:1150–1157. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2603-2.
    1. Park JJ, Kim CK, Park SY, Park BK. Parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: fused T2-weighted imaging and high-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression at 3 T. Radiology. 2015;274:734–741. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14140920.
    1. Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;145:129–135. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12749.
    1. Balcacer P, Shergill A, Litkouhi B. MRI of cervical cancer with a surgical perspective: staging, prognostic implications and pitfalls. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019;44:2557–2571. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-01984-7.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Blanche P, Dartigues JF, Jacqmin-Gadda H. Estimating and comparing time-dependent areas under receiver operating characteristic curves for censored event times with competing risks. Stat Med. 2013;32:5381–5397. doi: 10.1002/sim.5958.
    1. R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria
    1. Bankier AA, Levine D, Halpern EF, Kressel HY. Consensus interpretation in imaging research: is there a better way? Radiology. 2010;257:14–17. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10100252.
    1. Mower WR. Evaluating bias and variability in diagnostic test reports. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;33:85–91. doi: 10.1016/S0196-0644(99)70422-1.
    1. Tummers P, Gerestein K, Mens JW, Verstraelen H, van Doorn H. Interobserver variability of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:890–894. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e318292da65.
    1. Singh AK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, Siegel BA. FDG-PET lymph node staging and survival of patients with FIGO stage IIIb cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56:489–493. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)04521-2.
    1. Liu B, Gao S, Li S. A comprehensive comparison of CT, MRI, positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/CT, and diffusion weighted imaging-MRI for detecting the lymph nodes metastases in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis based on 67 studies. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2017;82:209–222. doi: 10.1159/000456006.
    1. Haldorsen IS, Lura N, Blaakaer J, Fischerova D, Werner HMJ. What is the role of imaging at primary diagnostic work-up in uterine cervical cancer? Curr Oncol Rep. 2019;21:77. doi: 10.1007/s11912-019-0824-0.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir