宫颈癌淋巴结转移的评估:术前MRI和PET/CT与术后组织病理学结果的回顾性比较。

IF 1 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Süleyman Özen, Ergul Demircivi, Abdulkadir Turgut, Muzaffer Sancı
{"title":"宫颈癌淋巴结转移的评估:术前MRI和PET/CT与术后组织病理学结果的回顾性比较。","authors":"Süleyman Özen, Ergul Demircivi, Abdulkadir Turgut, Muzaffer Sancı","doi":"10.4274/tjod.galenos.2025.27482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node involvement in cervical cancer patients by correlating imaging results with surgical pathology findings.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on cervical cancer patients treated at İstanbul Medeniyet University Prof. Dr. Süleyman Yalçın City Hospital from 2016 to 2022. Patients who underwent preoperative PET/CT or MRI imaging and subsequent lymph node dissection were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each imaging modality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 75 cases reviewed, 52 met the inclusion criteria. PET/CT had higher specificity (94.1%) than MRI (82.4%), while MRI demonstrated greater sensitivity (55.6% vs. 50%). False-negative rates were 15.3% for MRI and 17.3% for PET/CT. Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated an area under the curve of 0.78 for PET/CT and 0.69 for MRI. No statistically significant differences in sensitivity or specificity were observed, with both modalities showing complementary strengths.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MRI and PET/CT each contribute significantly to preoperative cervical cancer evaluation, with MRI favored for local assessment and PET/CT for nodal detection. Combining both modalities enhances diagnostic accuracy. Further prospective research is required to confirm and strengthen these results. and improve imaging strategies for clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":45340,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology","volume":"22 2","pages":"129-133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12136126/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer: A retrospective comparison of preoperative MRI and PET/CT with postoperative histopathology results.\",\"authors\":\"Süleyman Özen, Ergul Demircivi, Abdulkadir Turgut, Muzaffer Sancı\",\"doi\":\"10.4274/tjod.galenos.2025.27482\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node involvement in cervical cancer patients by correlating imaging results with surgical pathology findings.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on cervical cancer patients treated at İstanbul Medeniyet University Prof. Dr. Süleyman Yalçın City Hospital from 2016 to 2022. Patients who underwent preoperative PET/CT or MRI imaging and subsequent lymph node dissection were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each imaging modality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 75 cases reviewed, 52 met the inclusion criteria. PET/CT had higher specificity (94.1%) than MRI (82.4%), while MRI demonstrated greater sensitivity (55.6% vs. 50%). False-negative rates were 15.3% for MRI and 17.3% for PET/CT. Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated an area under the curve of 0.78 for PET/CT and 0.69 for MRI. No statistically significant differences in sensitivity or specificity were observed, with both modalities showing complementary strengths.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MRI and PET/CT each contribute significantly to preoperative cervical cancer evaluation, with MRI favored for local assessment and PET/CT for nodal detection. Combining both modalities enhances diagnostic accuracy. Further prospective research is required to confirm and strengthen these results. and improve imaging strategies for clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45340,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology\",\"volume\":\"22 2\",\"pages\":\"129-133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12136126/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2025.27482\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2025.27482","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价正电子发射断层扫描/计算机断层扫描(PET/CT)和磁共振成像(MRI)对宫颈癌患者盆腔和主动脉旁淋巴结累及的诊断价值,并将影像学结果与手术病理结果进行对比。材料与方法:回顾性分析2016年至2022年在İstanbul mediyet大学s leyman博士Yalçın城市医院治疗的宫颈癌患者。包括术前接受PET/CT或MRI成像和随后淋巴结清扫的患者。计算每种成像方式的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。结果:75例病例中,52例符合纳入标准。PET/CT的特异性(94.1%)高于MRI(82.4%),而MRI的敏感性(55.6%)高于MRI(50%)。MRI假阴性率为15.3%,PET/CT为17.3%。受试者工作特征分析显示PET/CT曲线下面积为0.78,MRI曲线下面积为0.69。敏感性和特异性均无统计学差异,两种方法均有互补优势。结论:MRI和PET/CT对宫颈癌术前评估均有重要作用,MRI有利于局部评估,PET/CT有利于淋巴结检测。结合这两种方式可以提高诊断的准确性。需要进一步的前瞻性研究来证实和加强这些结果。改善临床实践的成像策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer: A retrospective comparison of preoperative MRI and PET/CT with postoperative histopathology results.

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node involvement in cervical cancer patients by correlating imaging results with surgical pathology findings.

Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on cervical cancer patients treated at İstanbul Medeniyet University Prof. Dr. Süleyman Yalçın City Hospital from 2016 to 2022. Patients who underwent preoperative PET/CT or MRI imaging and subsequent lymph node dissection were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each imaging modality.

Results: Of the 75 cases reviewed, 52 met the inclusion criteria. PET/CT had higher specificity (94.1%) than MRI (82.4%), while MRI demonstrated greater sensitivity (55.6% vs. 50%). False-negative rates were 15.3% for MRI and 17.3% for PET/CT. Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated an area under the curve of 0.78 for PET/CT and 0.69 for MRI. No statistically significant differences in sensitivity or specificity were observed, with both modalities showing complementary strengths.

Conclusion: MRI and PET/CT each contribute significantly to preoperative cervical cancer evaluation, with MRI favored for local assessment and PET/CT for nodal detection. Combining both modalities enhances diagnostic accuracy. Further prospective research is required to confirm and strengthen these results. and improve imaging strategies for clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信