Sandra Alheli Garza1, Tara Sagebiel2, Wei Wei3, Jingfei Ma4, and Priya Bhosale2
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States, 2Diagnostic Radiology Department, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States, 3Biostatistics Department, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States, 4Department of Imaging Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
Synopsis
Distinguishing uterine malignant mixed mullerian
tumors (MMMTs) from endometrial carcinomas preoperatively by pelvic MRI may help with
surgical and treatment planning of this highly aggressive tumor. Our study found that prolapse of tumor through
the external cervical os, delayed iso- or hyper-enhancement, high mean tumor: myometrium
positive enhancement integral (PEI) ratio and low tumor signal enhancement
ratio (SER) are more commonly seen in patients with MMMT and may alert the
radiologist to the possibility of this diagnosis.
INTRODUCTION
Uterine carcinosarcoma, also known as Malignant Mixed
Mullerian tumor (MMMT) makes up less than 5% of uterine tumors. However, it is
highly aggressive, has a worse prognosis than endometrial carcinoma (EC), and
disproportionately accounts for up to 16% of uterine tumor-related deaths (1).
More than half of patients will have extrauterine spread at the time of
presentation (1). Preoperative determination of uterine MMMT may alert the
surgeons of prognosis and guide surgical approach and adjuvant therapies. The
objective of this study was to determine if the dynamic contrast enhancement
characteristics by preoperative pelvic MRIs can help distinguish uterine MMMT
from endometrial carcinoma.METHODS
Preoperative pelvic MRIs were retrospectively reviewed for 37
patients with histologically proven uterine MMMT and 42 patients with
histologically proven EC after IRB approval and waiver of informed consent. All
cases had sagittal T2-weighted sequences. In the uterine MMMT group, 23 MRIs
had fat-suppressed T1-weighted 3D dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequences
(21 in sagittal plane, 2 in axial plane), 10 had delayed T1-weighted
fat-suppressed post contrast sequences and 4 were without contrast. In the EC
group, 41 MRIs had fat-suppressed T1-weighted 3D DCE sequences (all in sagittal
plane) and 1 was without contrast. Presence or absence of tumor prolapse through the internal or
external cervical os and the length of prolapse were recorded using the
sagittal T2-weighted images. Qualitative enhancement characteristics assessed included
enhancement of tumor relative to myometrium in the early and delayed phases;
these were scored as tumor hypo-enhancement, iso-enhancement or
hyper-enhancement relative to the myometrium. For
semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhancement analysis, functional maps
were generated for positive enhancement integral (PEI), maximum slope of
increase (MSI) and signal enhancement ratio (SER) parameters on a GE Advantage
Window (AW) workstation.
Values of these parameters were obtained for tumor and outer myometrium
ROIs and tumor: myometrium PEI, MSI and SER ratios were calculated. Comparison
between EC and MMMT groups was performed using Fisher’s exact test for
qualitative assessments and Wilcoxon rank sum test for quantitative measurements.
RESULTS
MMMTs showed a statistically significant higher incidence of
tumor prolapse through the external os (p=0.02). Length of prolapse was longer
for MMMTs (1.1 +/- 1.8 cm) compared to ECs (0.19 +/-0.4 cm), findings which
trended toward statistical significance (p=0.06).
No significant difference was found in the early contrast
enhancement of uterine MMMT and EC, with the majority of both tumor groups
showing early hypo-enhancement relative to myometrium, 68.2% (15/22) MMMT and
68.4% (26/38) EC (p>0.99). Late contrast enhancement was significantly different
between both groups (p=0.02), with up to 15.6% (5/32) of MMMTs showing delayed
iso- or hyper-enhancement compared to none in the EC group. MMMTs had a statistically significant higher mean tumor: myometrium
PEI ratio of 0.92 (SD 0.39) compared to 0.53 (SD 0.19) for EC (p<0.0001).
MMMT had statistically significant lower tumor SER of 92.5 (SD 38.5) compared
to 118.5 (SD 36.7) for EC (p=0.006).
DISCUSSION
Uterine MMMTs have been shown to often be indistinguishable
from ECs in several studies in terms of their morphologic appearance and signal
characteristics (2). To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date
exploring the dynamic enhancement characteristics of these tumors and whether
tumor prolapse through the cervical os is a distinguishing factor. Presence of tumor prolapse through
the external cervical os is highly suggestive of MMMT. Although there was no difference
in the early enhancement pattern in our study, MMMTs showed delayed iso- and hyper-enhancement
compared to endometrial carcinomas. Based on our study, semi-quantitative
parameters may also help distinguish between MMMTs and ECs, with higher mean
tumor: myometrium PEI ratios and lower tumor SER ratios suggesting MMMT.
Preoperative determination of MMMT may guide surgical planning and treatment
strategy given their aggressive behavior and propensity towards nodal or
distant metastatic disease at presentation (1). Our initial results are
promising and larger studies are needed to determine the significance of
enhancement pattern and semi-quantitative parameters in differentiating MMMT
from EC.
CONCLUSION
MMMTs may demonstrate tumor prolapse through the external cervical os, delayed iso- or hyper-enhancement, high mean tumor: myometrium PEI ratios
and low tumor SER ratios. Knowledge of this tumor morphology and enhancement
pattern may help in appropriate diagnosis, surgical and treatment planning in these patients.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Cantrell LA, Blank SV, Duska LR. Uterine
carcinosarcoma: a review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 137:
581-588.
2. Bharwani N, Newland A, Tunariu N, et al. MRI
appearances of uterine malignant mixed mullerian Tumors. AJR 2010; 195:
1268-1275.