Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer for women world Wide. The management of the ca cervix depends on the stage of the disease, hence, accurate staging of the disease is necessary for the selection of therapeutic strategy. The current staging system, that is the FIGO clinical staging system, has got some limitation and inconvenience to the patient. It is inadequate in the evaluation of prognostic factors like tumor size, parametrial invasion and nodal status. MRI is a noninvasive method of imaging without using ionizing radiations. Recent technical advances in MR imaging and proven ability of MRI in evaluation of parametrial invasion, tumor size, lymph node metastasis made MRI an optimal option for evaluation of the main prognostic factors and selection of therapeutic strategy.

Objectives: The present study was aimed to find out the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and accuracy of MRI in staging carcinoma cervix by comparing with the FIGO clinical staging system, which was taken as the reference.

Methods: Our study was a diagnostic test evaluation study involving 61 objects who were newly diagnosed cases of carcinoma cervix, already staged clinically by the FIGO system and referred to the radiology department for MRI imaging of pelvis during the period January 2016 to June 2017. MRI imaging of the pelvis and screening of abdomen was done for these patients. Patient was then staged with MRI. Then the predicted stage for each patient with the two methods were compared. The analysis done by standard Chi square test. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were obtained.

Results: In assessing whether the lesion was confined to cervix or extended beyond cervix sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, & accuracy was 60%, 100%, 100% 92.7% and 93% respectively. In assessing the parametrial extension MRI had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, & accuracy of 100%, 60%, 88.5%, 100%, 90.1% respectively. In assessing the bladder mucosal invasion MRI had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, & accuracy of 100%, 94%, 78.6%, 100%, 95% respectively. In assessing the rectal mucosal invasion MRI had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, & accuracy of 100%, 96.5%, 66.7%, 100%, 96.7% respectively. Clinical staging and MR staging concurred in 85% of cases and differed in 15% of cases.

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging in carcinoma cervix has a good sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and  diagnostic accuracy in differentiating between  different stages of the disease .In addition to the information regarding  tumor size and its local extension, MRI also provided details regarding the pelvic lymphadenopathy, abdominal and inguinal lymphadenopathy, abdominal,  pelvic metastasis as well as possibility of lung metastasis if pleural effusion or basal lung lesion were present.

Keywords: Carcinoma cervix, MRI carcinoma cervix, FIGO clinical staging.

1. Kaur H, Silverman PM, Iyer RB, Verschraegen CF, Eifel PJ, Charnsangavej C. Diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of cervical carcinoma. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2003 Jun;180(6):1621-31.
2. 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. European radiology. 2013 Jul 1;23(7):2005-18.
3. Mahajan M, Kuber R, Chaudhari KR, Chaudhari P, Ghadage P, Naik R. MR imaging of carcinoma cervix. The Indian journal of radiology & imaging. 2013 Jul;23(3):247
4. Balleyguier C, Saha E, Da Cunha T, et al (2011). Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol, 21, 1102-10.
5. Shirazi AS, Razi T, Cheraghi F, Rahim F, Ehsani S, Davoodi M. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging versus clinical staging in cervical cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014 Jan 1;15(14):5729-32
6. Zhang W, Zhang J, Yang J, Xue H, Cao D, Huang H, Wu M, Cui Q, Chen J, Lang J, Shen K. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early-stage cervical cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2014 Sep 1;24(7):1292-8.
7. Kraljević Z, Visković K, Ledinsky M, Zadravec D, Grbavac I, Bilandžija M, Soljačić-Vraneš H, Kuna K, Klasnić K, Krolo I. Primary uterine cervical cancer: correlation of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and clinical staging (FIGO) with histopathology findings. Collegium antropologicum. 2013 Jul 1;37(2):561-8
8. Kim WY, Chang SJ, Chang KH, Yoo SC, Lee EJ, Ryu HS. Reliability of magnetic resonance imaging for bladder or rectum invasion in cervical cancer. The Journal of reproductive medicine. 2011;56(11-12):485-90.
9. Kim SH, Lee HJ, Kim YW. Correlation between tumor size and surveillance of lymph node metastasis for IB and IIA cervical cancer by magnetic resonance images. European journal of radiology. 2012 Aug 31;81(8):1945-50.
10. Goro Kasuya, Takafumi Toita,1 Kazuhisa Furutani,2 Takeshi Kodaira,2 Tatsuya Ohno,3 Yuko Kaneyasu,4 Ryouichi Yoshimura,5 Takashi Uno,6 Akira Yogi,1 Satoshi Ishikura,7 and Masahiro Distribution patterns of metastatic pelvic lymph nodes assessed by CT/MRI in patients with uterine cervical cancer : Radiation Oncology20138:139
11. Dhoot NM, Kumar V, Shinagare A, Kataki AC, Barmon D, Bhuyan U. Evaluation of carcinoma cervix using magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with clinical FIGO staging and impact on management. Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology. 2012 Feb 1;56(1):58-65.
12. Balleyguier C, Fournet C, Hassen WB, Zareski E, Morice P, Haie-Meder C, Uzan C, Gouy S, Duvillard P, Lhommé C. Management of cervical cancer detected during pregnancy: role of magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical imaging. 2013 Feb 28;37(1):70-6.

Dr Brahmadathan.M.N

Professor of Radiodiagnosis, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India