Effect of MRI on Therapeutic Decisions in Invasive Cervical Carcinoma

Postema, S.; Pattynama, Peter M. T.; Berg-Huysmans, Annette van den; Peters, Lex W.; Kenter, Gemma G.; Trimbos, J. Baptist

doi:10.1006/gyno.2000.5986

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 may occur only rarely, but even more moderate examples pose concerning disparities between overall accuracy and sensitivity or specificity. Table 2 lists prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy values reported in the studies ascertained in the search of the clinical literature 10–34 . The 25 studies are ordered according to study‐specific disease prevalence, demonstrating that disease prevalence varies widely in clinical studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of “overall accuracy” to evaluate the validity of screening or diagnostic tests

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:Evaluations of screening or diagnostic tests sometimes incorporate measures of overall accuracy , diagnostic accuracy , or test efficiency . These terms refer to a single summary measurement calculated from 2 × × × × 2 contingency tables that is the overall probability that a patient will be correctly classified by a screening or diagnostic test. We assessed the value of overall accuracy in studies of test validity, a topic that has not received adequate emphasis in the clinical literature. DESIGN:Guided by previous reports, we summarize the issues concerning the use of overall accuracy. To document its use in contemporary studies, a search was performed for test evaluation studies published in the clinical literature from 2000 to 2002 in which overall accuracy derived from a 2 × × × × 2 contingency table was reported. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Overall accuracy is the weighted average of a test's sensitivity and specificity, where sensitivity is weighted by prevalence and specificity is weighted by the complement of prevalence. Overall accuracy becomes particularly problematic as a measure of validity as 1) the difference between sensitivity and specificity increases and/or 2) the prevalence deviates away from 50%. Both situations lead to an increasing deviation between overall accuracy and either sensitivity or specificity. A summary of results from published studies ( N = = = = 25) illustrated that the prevalencedependent nature of overall accuracy has potentially negative consequences that can lead to a distorted impression of the validity of a screening or diagnostic test. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the intuitive appeal of overall accuracy as a single measure of test validity, its dependence on prevalence renders it inferior to the careful and balanced consideration of sensitivity and specificity.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of “overall accuracy” to evaluate the validity of screening or diagnostic tests

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, there is some limitation in the accuracy of detecting residual disease after EBRT and also during brachytherapy. Therefore, during the brachytherapy target delineation procedure the findings obtained from both the MRI and the CE, even if weighted in importance to different degrees, must be taken into account to provide an accurate as possible assessment of the GTV and HR-CTV [19,36,39]. 18, 25,26,34,42].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MRI Assessment of Cervical Cancer for Adaptive Radiotherapy

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hertel et al, calculated a sensitivity of 64.0% with a specificity of 88.0% for MRI detectable bladder involvement [7]. Postema et al, found a sensitivity and a specificity of 77.0% and 97.0%, respectively, for bladder invasion detection by MRI [8]. 5 of eighteen patients, suspected on MRI to have mucosal bladder invasion were not confirmed at histology.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All these techniques might improve diagnostic accuracy of MRI studies. MRI results vary according to the radiologist's experience [8,22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI in Primary Cervical Cancer

Rigon¹,

Vallone²,

Starita³

et al. 2012

OJRad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies obtained during the initial staging of patients affected by uterine cervical cancer were compared to the final histological report after surgery. Methods: Data were retrieved from published papers. Results: MRI detection of lymph node metastases shows a sensitivity of 49.3% (1209 patients) and a specificity of 87.7% (1182 patients). Parametrial involvement detection has 66.2% sensitivity (1288 patients) and 83.6% specificity (1282 patients). MRI tumor size evaluation shows significant error. Even detection of over 1 cm diameter primary tumor can fail. MRI appears promising in the detection of myometrial and endometrial involvement. Conclusions: Primary uterine cervical cancer evaluation with routine MRI has a limited accuracy especially in the detection of lymph node involvement and parametrial invasion. It is not sensitive enough to replace histology of dissected nodes and parametria. Tumor size estimation is imprecise. Detection of myometrial and endometrial invasion using MRI might be possible. Awareness of MRI limitations is crucial in primary cervical cancer staging.

show abstract

Effect of MRI on Therapeutic Decisions in Invasive Cervical Carcinoma

Cited by 15 publications

References 14 publications

The use of “overall accuracy” to evaluate the validity of screening or diagnostic tests

The use of “overall accuracy” to evaluate the validity of screening or diagnostic tests

MRI Assessment of Cervical Cancer for Adaptive Radiotherapy

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI in Primary Cervical Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About