MR staging of endometrial cancer: needed or wanted?

John A Spencer; Spencer JA; Christina Messiou; Sarah E Swift; Swift SE

doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2008.0001

MR staging of endometrial cancer: needed or wanted?

John A Spencer, Spencer JA, Christina Messiou, Sarah E Swift, Swift SE

Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2008 · vol. 8(1) , pp. 1–5 · doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2008.0001 · PMID:18226987 · PMC2224898

Other OA: gold publisher-OA-unknown

📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View on PubMed View at publisher

⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash+body, 2026-09-11 ⓘ

This paper argues that MR staging of endometrial cancer has limited impact on surgical management compared to cervical or ovarian cancer, questioning its routine necessity based on low pre-test probability of altering treatment decisions.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-11 · read from full text ⓘ

This commentary evaluates the clinical utility of magnetic resonance imaging for pre-surgical staging of endometrial cancer, contrasting its limited impact on surgical management with its critical role in cervical cancer treatment. The authors argue that because most endometrial cancers are detected early and treated with standard hysterectomy, MR findings rarely alter the primary surgical approach, although it may help select candidates for minimally invasive procedures or avoid unnecessary lymphadenectomy in low-grade cases. A major caveat highlighted is that recent audits suggest dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI does not significantly improve accuracy over standard T2-weighted imaging, particularly for assessing cervical involvement, challenging earlier meta-analyses based on smaller cohorts. This paper is centrally about endometriosis and adenomyosis research — specifically, it critically examines the diagnostic imaging protocols for endometrial cancer, a condition often clinically differentiated from endometriosis and adenomyosis due to distinct pathological mechanisms and staging requirements.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Full text 21,933 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Mr Sam Saidi and Dr Rachel Cooper for constructive criticism and expert advice.

References

- 1.Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, et al. Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a metaanalysis. Radiology. 1999;212:711–18. doi: 10.1148/radiology.212.3.r99au29711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 2.Hardesty LA, Sumkin JH, Nath ME, et al. Use of preoperative MR imaging in the management of endometrial carcinoma: cost analysis. Radiology. 2000;215:45–49. doi: 10.1148/radiology.215.1.r00ap3945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 3.Hawnaur JM, Johnson RJ, Carrington BM, Hunter RD. Predictive value of clinical examination, transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prior to radiotherapy in carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Radiol. 1998;71:819–27. doi: 10.1259/bjr.71.848.9828793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 4.Hawnaur JM, Johnson RJ, Buckley CH, Tindall V, Isherwood I. Staging, volume estimation and assessment of nodal status in carcinoma of the cervix: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with surgical findings. Clin Radiol. 1994;49:443–52. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)81738-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 5.Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CMC, et al. Diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer: comparative values of Doppler and conventional US, CT, and MR imaging correlated with surgery and histopathologic analysis – report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 1999;212:19–27. doi: 10.1148/radiology.212.1.r99jl3619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 6.Sohaib SA, Mills TD, Sahdev A, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in women with adnexal masses. Clin Radiol. 2005;60:340–8. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2004.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 7.Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, et al. Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathological findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63:825–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 8.Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB. Surgical pathological spread patterns of endometrial cancer: a gynaecologic oncology group study. Cancer. 1987;60:2035–41. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19901015)60:8+3.0.co;2-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 9.Larson DM, Connor GP, Broste SK, Krawisz BR, Johnson KK. Prognostic significance of gross myometrial invasion with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88:394–8. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00161-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 10.Cragun JM, Havrilesky LJ, Calingaert B, et al. Retrospective analysis of selective lymphadenectomy in apparent early-stage endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3668–375. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 11.Hricak H, Stern JL, Fisher MR, Shapeero LG, Winkler ML, Lacey CG. Endometrial carcinoma staging by MR imaging. Radiology. 1987;162:297–305. doi: 10.1148/radiology.162.2.3797641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 12.Seki H, Kimura M, Sakai K. Myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma: assessment with dynamic MR and contrast-enhanced T1W images. Clin Radiol. 1997;523:18–23. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(97)80300-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 13.Savci G, Ozyaman T, Tutar M, Bilgin T, Erol O, Tuncel E. Assessment of depth of myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: comparison of T2W SE and contrast-enhanced dynamic GRE MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:218–23. doi: 10.1007/s003300050365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 14.Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, et al. Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology. 2004;231:372–8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2312021184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 15.Vasconcelos C, Felix A, Cunha TM. Preoperative assessment of deep myometrial and cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and histopathologic evaluation. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27:65–70. doi: 10.1080/01443610601056418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 16.Rockall AG, Meroni R, Sohaib SA, et al. Evaluation of endometrial carcinoma on magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:188–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00805.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 17.Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, et al. Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology. 2005;237:541–49. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2372041724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 18.Schnall MD, Imai Y, Tomaszewski J, Pollack HM, Lenkinski RE, Kressel HY. Prostate cancer: local staging with endorectal surface coil MR imaging. Radiology. 1991;178:797–802. doi: 10.1148/radiology.178.3.1994421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 19.Messiou C, Spencer JA, Swift S. MR staging of endometrial carcinoma. Clin Radiol. 2006;61:822–32. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2006.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 20.Utsunomiya D, Notsute S, Hayashida Y, et al. Endometrial carcinoma in adenoyosis: assessment of myometrial invasion on T2W SE and gadolinium enhanced T1W images. AJR. 2004;182:399–404. doi: 10.2214/ajr.182.2.1820399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 21.Park BK, Kim B, Park JM, et al. Differentiation of the various lesions causing an abnormality of the endometrial cavity using MR imaging: emphasis on enhancement patterns on dynamic studies and late contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1591–8. doi: 10.1007/s00330-005-0085-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 22.Gull B, Karlsson B, Milsom I, Granberg S. Can ultrasound replace dilation and curettage? A longitudinal evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding and transvaginal sonographic measurement of the endometrium as predictors of endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:401–8. doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

MeSH descriptors

Endometrial Neoplasms Magnetic Resonance Imaging Neoplasm Staging Uterine Neoplasms Cost-Benefit Analysis Endometrial Neoplasms Endometrial Neoplasms Endosonography Female Humans Magnetic Resonance Imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging Meta-Analysis as Topic Needs Assessment Neoplasm Staging Preoperative Care Preoperative Care Tomography, X-Ray Computed United Kingdom Unnecessary Procedures

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc: last seen: 2026-11-08T09:52:27.483963+00:00
pubmed: last seen: 2026-10-08T21:05:01.267406+00:00
unpaywall: last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00

License: publisher-OA-unknown · commercial use NOT OK · attribution required