Ovid: Welcome to Ovid

MR imaging of endometrial carcinoma for preoperative staging at 3.0 T: Comparison with imaging at 1.5 T.
Hori, Masatoshi MD, PhD 1,*; Kim, Tonsok MD, PhD 1; Murakami, Takamichi MD, PhD 2; Imaoka, Izumi MD, PhD 2; Onishi, Hiromitsu MD, PhD 1; Nakamoto, Atsushi MD 1; Nakaya, Yasuhiro MD, PhD 1; Tomoda, Kaname MD, PhD 1; Tsutsui, Tateki MD, PhD 3; Enomoto, Takayuki MD, PhD 3; Kimura, Tadashi MD, PhD 3; Nakamura, Hironobu MD, PhD 1
[Article] Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 30(3):621-630, September 2009.

(Format: HTML, PDF)

Purpose: To prospectively compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3.0 T and 1.5 T in the same patients for preoperative evaluation of endometrial carcinoma.

Materials and Methods: Thirty consecutive patients with endometrial carcinoma underwent MRI at both 3.0 T and 1.5 T as well as surgery. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed. Two radiologists independently evaluated images. MR findings were compared with surgicopathologic findings.

Results: Image homogeneity of T2-weighted images at 3.0 T was significantly inferior to that at 1.5 T (P = 0.007). The scores of image homogeneity and susceptibility artifacts were not significantly different between 3.0 T gadolinium-enhanced imaging and 1.5 T imaging (P = 0.09 and 0.36). Kappa statistics showed good interobserver agreement between the two radiologists for local-regional staging on T2-weighted images ([kappa]>0.6). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) values for T2-weighted imaging in terms of myometrial invasion, cervical invasion, and lymph node metastases were 0.88 (3.0 T) versus 0.91 (1.5 T), 0.84 versus 0.83, and 0.94 versus 0.95 for reader 1, respectively. There were no significant differences between imaging at 3.0 T and at 1.5 T in Az values for either reader (P > 0.35).

Conclusion: 3.0 T MRI is an equivalent imaging modality to 1.5 T imaging for presurgical evaluation of endometrial carcinoma, although not significantly superior to 1.5 T imaging. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;30:621-630. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.