Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Determining Prognostic Factors for Cervical Cancer IB2-IIB Stages after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Background: Comprehensive treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer (CC) requires the use of informative diagnostic methods to assess tumor size, extent of the tumor and other factors that determine prognosis of the disease.
Purpose: Determination of diagnostic opportunities of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the visualization of residual tumor and assessment of the main prognostic factors in patients with stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer (FIGO) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).
Material and methods: Patients with stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer (n = 120) were prospectively enrolled in the study; they received NACT followed by surgical treatment or chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients underwent mpMRI before NACT and not later than 14 days after the 3rd course of NACT. To determine the diagnostic opportunities of mpMRI, MRI-data were compared with pathomorphological results. In the comparative analysis were included the following factors: residual tumor size (maximum diameter), depth of stromal invasion (mm), presence of parametrial invasion. Potential MRI-signs suggestive for lymphovascular invasion (LVI) of the parametrium were also assessed.
Results: Obtained MRI-data about the size of the residual tumor and the depth of stromal invasion showed statistically significant correlation with the results of pathomorphological study (p < 0.0001) — R² = 0.77 and 0.69, respectively. Difference value in measuring the maximum diameter of the residual tumor was on the average 2.52±6.76 mm. MRI sensitivity in the assessment of parametrial invasion was 71.4 %, specificity — 95.1 %, accuracy — 88.9 %, PVPR — 71.4 %, PVNR — 95.1 %. Potential predictors significantly associated with parametrial LVI were identified: parametrial edema (p = 0.001) and dilatation of parametrial vessels (> 3 mm) (p = 0.015). According to these factors was developed a mathematical model, which predicts the risk of having parametrial LVI before surgery in patients after NACT.
Conclusion: Multiparametric MRI is an effective technique in assessing the size of the residual tumor, depth of stromal invasion and parametrial invasion in patients with stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer after NACT. MpMRI makes it possible to assess potential signs, associated with parametrial LVI in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-49. DOI:10.3322/caac.21660.

2. Lind H, Waldenström AC, Dunberger G, et al. Late symptoms in long-term gynaecological cancer survivors after radiation therapy: a population-based cohort study. Br J Cancer. 2011 Sep 6;105(6):737-45. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2011.315.

3. Cheng J, Hou Y, Li J, et al. Agreement Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Pathologic Findings in the Tumor Size Evaluation Before and After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Treatment: A Prospective Study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Sep;27(7):1472-9. DOI:10.1097/IGC.0000000000001038.

4. Vincens E, Balleyguier C, Rey A, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting residual disease in patients treated for stage IB2/II cervical carcinoma with chemoradiation therapy: correlation of radiologic findings with surgicopathologic results. Cancer. 2008 Oct 15;113(8):2158-65. DOI:10.1002/cncr.23817.

5. Sala E, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, et al. The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patients with gynecologic malignancies: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiology. 2013 Mar;266(3):717-40. DOI:10.1148/radiol.12120315.

6. Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, et al. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Oct;143 Suppl 2:22-36. DOI:10.1002/ijgo.12611.

7. Xiao M, Yan B, Li Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of MR imaging in evaluating prognostic factors in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2020 Mar;30(3):1405-18. DOI:10.1007/s00330-019-06461-9.

8. Manganaro L, Lakhman Y, Bharwani N, et al. 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. 2021 Oct;31(10):7802-16. DOI:10.1007/s00330-020-07632-9.

9. 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 Sep;24(7):1292-8. DOI:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000169.

10. Sala P, Marchiolè P, Cittadini G, et al. Is magnetic resonance imaging useful in early evaluation of women on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer? Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2012;33(1):31-6. PMID:22439402.

11. Pinkavova I, Fischerova D, Zikan M, et al. Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of tumor size following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Dec;42(6):705-12. DOI:10.1002/uog.12455.

12. Moloney F, Ryan D, Twomey M, et al. Comparison of MRI and high-resolution transvaginal sonography for the local staging of cervical cancer. J Clin Ultrasound. 2016 Feb;44(2):78-84. DOI:10.1002/jcu.22288.

13. Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, et al. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jul;86(1):43-50. DOI:10.1016/0029-7844(95)00109-5.

14. Sironi S, De Cobelli F, Scarfone G, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: value of plain and gadoliniumenhanced MR imaging in assessing degree of invasiveness. Radiology. 1993 Sep;188(3):797-801. DOI:10.1148/radiology.188.3.8351350.

15. Perniola G, Fischetti M, Tomao F, et al. Evaluation of Parametrial Status in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Patients after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Prospective Study on Diagnostic Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Transvaginal Ultrasound. Oncology 2020;98:603-11. DOI:10.1159/000506642

16. Testa AC, Ludovisi M, Manfredi R, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of presence, size and extent of invasive cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;34(3):335-44. DOI:10.1002/uog.7325.

17. Kharuzhyk SA, Kosenko IA, Matylevich OP, Dulinec IS, Litvinova TM. The usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical cancer and evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness. Oncology Journal. 2010;4(1):54-60 (In Russian).

18. Li X, Xu C, Yu Y, et al. Prediction of lymphovascular space invasion using a combination of tenascin-C, cox-2, and PET/CT radiomics in patients with early-stage cervical squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2021 Jul 28;21(1):866. DOI:10.1186/s12885-021-08596-9.

19. Ahlin PA, Weiss RL. Risk management and compliance in pathology and laboratory medicine. Clin Lab Med 2007;27:859-73. DOI:10.1002/jmri.26531.

20. Li Z, Li H, Wang S, et al. MR-Based Radiomics Nomogram of Cervical Cancer in Prediction of the Lymph-Vascular Space Invasion preoperatively. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 May;49(5):1420-6. DOI:10.1002/jmri.26531.

21. Baltzer PA, Yang F, Dietzel M, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of unilateral edema on T2WTSE sequences in MR-mammography considering 974 histologically verified lesions. Breast J. 2010 May-Jun;16(3):233-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.00915.x.

22. Gemici AA, Özal ST, Hocaoğlu E, et al. Relation of peritumoral, prepectoral and diffuse edema with histopathologic findings of breast cancer in pre-operative 3T magnetic resonance imaging. J Surg Med. 2019;(3):49-53. DOI:10.28982/josam.512779.

23. Cheon H, Kim HJ, Lee SM, et al. Preoperative MRI features associated with lymphovascular invasion in node-negative invasive breast cancer: A propensity-matched analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Oct;46(4):1037-44. DOI:10.1002/jmri.25710.

24. Mori N, Mugikura S, Takasawa C, et al. Peritumoral apparent diffusion coefficients for prediction of lymphovascular invasion in clinically nodenegative invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2016 Feb;26(2):331-9. DOI:10.1007/s00330-015-3847-4.