Application Value of 3D Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measurements with Sensing Technology for Diagnosis and Staging of Endometrial Cancer (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Background: In recent years, the morbidity of EC has increased significantly. Early diagnosis and reasonable treatment of EC patients have improved the survival rate of patients. OBJECTIVE Objective: The value of 3D ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging based on sensor technology on the diagnosis and staging of endometrial cancer is explored. METHODS Methods: The paper selected 31 patients with endometrial cancer who were admitted to our hospital from February 2016 to February 2018 and who were diagnosed as endometrial cancer. All patients underwent 3D ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for measurement evaluation. The results of the joint examination were compared with the final pathological diagnosis analysis, and the pathological diagnosis was used as the gold standard, and the detection rate and the coincidence rate of each examination result were calculated. RESULTS Results: The detection rates of 3D-TVUS, MRI and 3D-TVUS*MRI were 65% (20/31), 71% (22/31) and 97% (30/31), respectively. 3D-TVUS was statistically significant compared with 3D-TVUS*MRI results. MRI and the 3D-TVUS*MRI results were statistically significant. The difference between the three methods was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The coincidence rate of 3D-TVUS*MRI was higher than that of 3D-TVUS or MRI single examination. For Ia and Ib, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05), and in stage Ia. The staging results of MRI were compared with the staging results of 3D-TVUS*MRI, and the difference was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions: The diagnosis and staging of 3D-TVUS*MRI for EC is significantly better than 3D-TVUS or MRI single examination, which could better guide clinical treatment. CLINICALTRIAL

[1]  J. Alcázar,et al.  Three‐Dimensional Transvaginal Sonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Cervical Cancer , 2016, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[2]  H. Salvesen,et al.  What Is the Best Preoperative Imaging for Endometrial Cancer? , 2016, Current Oncology Reports.

[3]  B. K. Park,et al.  Long-term outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging-invisible endometrial cancer , 2016, Journal of gynecologic oncology.

[4]  M. Dueholm,et al.  Assessment of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer using three‐dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging , 2016, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[5]  I. Lete,et al.  Tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer de endometrio: ¿qué pasaría si no realizamos biopsia intraoperatoria? , 2015 .

[6]  M. Pascual,et al.  Accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE–ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract , 2015, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[7]  B. Erickson,et al.  Consensus statement for brachytherapy for the treatment of medically inoperable endometrial cancer. , 2015, Brachytherapy.

[8]  A. Ragheb,et al.  Evaluation of the uterine cavity by magnetic resonance imaging, three dimensional hysterosonography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in women with pre- and post-menopausal bleeding , 2015 .

[9]  Zhaoqin Huang,et al.  Can the signal-to-noise ratio of choline in magnetic resonance spectroscopy reflect the aggressiveness of endometrial cancer? , 2015, Academic radiology.