title: Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To apply meta-analysis to compare the utility of lymphangiography (LAG), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  MEDLINE literature search and manual reviews of article bibliographies.
  
  
  METHODS
  Studies selected included at least 20 patients with imaging-histologic correlation, described diagnostic criteria for lymph node metastasis, and presented data to allow calculation of contingency tables.
  
  
  METHODS
  Independently by 2 investigators, stratified for stage of disease (early vs late) and for lymph node location (pelvic vs para-aortic).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria for LAG, 17 for CT, and 10 for MR imaging. Summary receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant differences in the overall performance of LAG, CT, and MR imaging. There was, however, a trend toward better performance for MR imaging than for LAG or CT, both globally and when stratified for stage of disease or for lymph node location. Bayesian analysis of clinical utility showed only moderate increases in positive posttest probability of lymph node metastasis for all methods. Negative test results had a greater impact and, depending on the clinical setting, decreased the probability of lymph node metastasis from 15% to 44% (pretest) to 3% to 18% (posttest).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The LAG, CT, and MR imaging perform similarly in the detection of lymph node metastasis from cervical cancer. As CT and MR imaging are less invasive than LAG and also assess local tumor extent, they should be considered the preferred adjuncts to clinical evaluation of invasive cervical cancer.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0628, USA.
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Scheidler
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Hricak
authors.forename: K K
authors.initials: KK
authors.lastname: Yu
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Subak
authors.forename: M R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Segal
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D016013:Likelihood Functions; D008207:Lymphatic Metastasis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D008220:Lymphography; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D012372:ROC Curve; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology*