PURPOSE: To apply a meta-analysis to compare the utility of computed tomogr
aphy (CT), ultrasonography (US), acid magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in st
aging endometrial cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from a MEDLINE literature search
and from manual reviews of article bibliographies. Articles were selected t
hat included results in patients with proved endometrial cancer and imaging
histopathologic correlation and that presented data that allowed calculati
on of contingency tables. Data for the imaging evaluation of myometrial and
cervical invasion were abstracted independently by two authors. Data on ye
ar of publication, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (F
IGO) stage distribution, and methodologic quality were also collected. A su
bgroup analysis was performed to compare contrast medium-enhanced MR imagin
g with nonenhanced MR imaging, US, and CT.
RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria for CT; 16, for US; and 25,
for MR imaging. Summary receiver operating characteristic analysis showed
no significant differences in the overall performance of CT, US, and MR ima
ging. In the assessment of myometrial invasion, however, contrast-enhanced
MR imaging performed significantly better than did nonenhanced MR imaging o
r US (P <.002) and demonstrated a trend toward better results, as compared
with CT. The lack of data on the assessment of cervical invasion at CT or U
S prevented meta-analytic comparison with data obtained at MR imaging. Resu
lts were not influenced by year of publication, FIGO stage distribution, or
methodologic quality.
CONCLUSION: Although US, CT, or MR imaging can be used in the pretreatment
evaluation of endometrial cancer, contrast-enhanced MR imaging offers "one-
stop" examination with the highest efficacy.