Prevalence of sonographic signs in women with uterine sarcoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective To assess the prevalence of sonographic signs in women with uterine sarcoma.

Materials and Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Five electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2022 for all studies allowing calculation of the prevalence of sonographic signs in women with uterine sarcoma. Pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals was calculated for each sonographic sign and was a priori defined as “very high” when it was ≥ 80%, “high” when it ranged from 80% to 70%, and less relevant when it was ≤ 70%.

Results 6 studies with 317 sarcoma patients were included. The pooled prevalence was:

• 25.0% (95%CI:15.4–37.9%) for absence of visibility of the myometrium

• 80.5% (95%CI:74.8–85.2%) for solid component

• 78.3% (95%CI:59.3–89.9%) for inhomogeneous echogenicity of solid component

• 47.9% (95%CI:41.1–54.8%) for cystic areas

• 80.7% (95%CI:68.3–89.0%) for irregular walls of cystic areas

• 72.3% (95%CI:16.7–97.2%) for anechoic cystic areas

• 54.8% (95%CI:34.0–74.1%) for absence of shadowing

• 73.5% (95%CI:43.3–90.9%) for absence of calcifications

• 48.7% (95%CI:18.6–79.8%) for color score 3 or 4

• 47.3% (95%CI:37.0–57.8%) for irregular tumor borders

• 45.4% (95%CI:27.6–64.3%) for endometrial cavity not visualizable

• 10.9% (95%CI:3.5–29.1%) for free pelvic fluid

• 6.4% (95%CI:1.1–30.2%) for ascites

• 21.2% (95%CI:2.1–76.8%) for intracavitary process

• 81.5% (95%CI:56.1–93.8%) for singular lesion.

Conclusion Solid component, irregular walls of cystic areas, and singular lesions are signs with very high prevalence, while inhomogeneous echogenicity of solid component, anechoic cystic areas, and absence of calcifications are signs with high prevalence. The remaining signs were less relevant.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Bewertung der Prävalenz sonografischer Zeichen bei Frauen mit Uterussarkom.

Material und Methoden Es wurden eine systematische Überprüfung und eine Meta-Analyse durchgeführt. Fünf elektronische Datenbanken wurden von Anfang bis Juni 2022 nach allen Studien durchsucht, die eine Berechnung der Prävalenz sonografischer Zeichen bei Frauen mit Uterussarkom ermöglichten. Die gepoolte Prävalenz mit 95%-Konfidenzintervallen wurde für jedes sonografische Zeichen berechnet und a priori als „sehr hoch“ definiert, wenn sie ≥ 80% war, „hoch“, wenn sie zwischen 80% und 70% lag, und als weniger relevant, wenn sie ≤70% lag.

Ergebnisse Es wurden 6 Studien mit 317 Sarkom-Patientinnen eingeschlossen. Die gepoolte Prävalenz betrug:

• 25,0% (95%-CI: 15,4–37,9%) bei fehlender Sichtbarkeit des Myometriums

• 80,5% (95%-CI: 74,8–85,2%) für eine solide Komponente

• 78,3% (95%-CI: 59,3–89,9%) für inhomogene Echogenität der soliden Komponente

• 47,9% (95%-CI: 41,1–54,8%) für zystische Bereiche

• 80,7% (95%-CI: 68,3–89,0%) für unregelmäßige Wände der zystischen Bereiche

• 72,3% (95%-CI: 16,7–97,2%) für echofreie zystische Bereiche

• 54,8% (95%-CI: 34,0–74,1%) für das Fehlen von Schattenbildung für keine Abschattung

• 73,5% (95%-CI: 43,3–90,9%) für das Fehlen von Verkalkungen

• 48,7% (95%-CI: 18,6–79,8%) für den Farbscore 3 oder 4

• 47,3% (95%-CI: 37,0–57,8%) für unregelmäßige Tumorgrenzen

• 45,4% (95%-CI: 27,6–64,3%) für eine nicht sichtbare Gebärmutterhöhle

• 10,9% (95%-CI: 3,5–29,1%) für freie Beckenflüssigkeit

• 6,4% (95%-CI: 1,1–30,2%) für Aszites

• 21,2% (95%-CI: 2,1–76,8%) für einen intrakavitären Prozess

• 81,5% (95%-CI: 56,1–93,8 %) für singuläre Läsionen.

Schlussfolgerung Zeichen mit sehr hoher Prävalenz sind eine solide Komponente, unregelmäßige Wände der zystischen Bereiche und singuläre Läsionen, während Zeichen mit hoher Prävalenz eine inhomogene Echogenität der soliden Komponente, echofreie zystische Bereiche und das Fehlen von Verkalkungen sind. Die übrigen Zeichen waren weniger relevant.

Keywords

malignancy - myomata - leiomyosarcoma - prediction - preoperative assessment

Publication History

Received: 24 March 2023

Accepted: 10 August 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
10 August 2023

Article published online:
28 September 2023

• References

• 1 Tropé CG, Abeler VM, Kristensen GB. “Diagnosis and treatment of sarcoma of the uterus. A review,”. Acta Oncologica 2012; 51 (06) DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2012.689111.. (PMID: 22793037)
• 2 Nagai T. et al. “Novel uterine sarcoma preoperative diagnosis score predicts the need for surgery in patients presenting with a uterine mass,”. Springerplus 2014; 3 (01) DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-678.. (PMID: 26405640)
• 3 D’Angelo E, Prat J. “Uterine sarcomas: A review,”. Gynecologic Oncology 2010; 116 (01) DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.09.023.. (PMID: 19853898)
• 4 Van Den Bosch T. et al. “Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: A consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group,”. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol 2015; 46 (03) DOI: 10.1002/uog.14806..
• 5 Amant F, Coosemans A, Debiec-Rychter M. et al. “Clinical management of uterine sarcomas,”. The Lancet Oncology 2009; 10 (12) DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70226-8.. (PMID: 19959075)
• 6 Moher D. et al. “Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement,”. Rev. Esp. Nutr. Humana y Diet 2016; 20 (02) DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1..
• 7 Chiappa V. et al. “Using rADioMIcs and machine learning with ultrasonography for the differential diagnosis of myometRiAL tumors (the ADMIRAL pilot study). Radiomics and differential diagnosis of myometrial tumors,”. Gynecol. Oncol 2021; 161 (03) DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.04.004..
• 8 Bonneau C, Thomassin-Naggara I, Dechoux S. et al. “Value of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the characterization of uterine mesenchymal tumors,”. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand 2014; 93 (03) DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12325..
• 9 Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D. et al. “Methodological index for non-randomized studies (Minors): Development and validation of a new instrument,”. ANZ J. Surg 2003; 73 (09) DOI: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x.. (PMID: 12956787)
• 10 Raffone A. et al. “Diabetes Mellitus Is Associated with Occult Cancer in Endometrial Hyperplasia,”. Pathology and Oncology Research 2020; 26 (03) DOI: 10.1007/s12253-019-00684-3..
• 11 Travaglino A. et al. “Congruence between 1994 WHO classification of endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia system,”. Am. J. Clin. Pathol 2020; 153 (01) DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqz132..
• 12 Travaglino A. et al. “Significant risk of occult cancer in complex non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia,”. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2019; 300 (05) DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05299-2.
• 13 Raffone A, Raimondo D, Travaglino A. et al. “Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in the differential diagnosis between uterine leiomyomas and sarcomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis,”. Manuscr. Submitt. Publ. 2022
• 14 Aviram R. et al. “Uterine sarcomas versus leiomyomas: Gray-scale and Doppler sonographic findings,”. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2005; 33 (01) DOI: 10.1002/jcu.20075..
• 15 Chen I, Firth B, Hopkins L. et al. “Clinical characteristics differentiating uterine sarcoma and fibroids,”. J. Soc. Laparoendosc. Surg 2018; 22 (01) DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2017.00066..
• 16 Hata K, Hata T, Maruyama R. et al. “Uterine sarcoma: Can it be differentiated from uterine leiomyoma with Doppler ultrasonography? A preliminary report,”. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol 1997; 9 (02) DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.09020101.x..
• 17 Zhao F, Xu Y, Zhang H. et al. “Ultrasonographic findings of uterine carcinosarcoma,”. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest 2019; 84 (03) 277-282 DOI: 10.1159/000481885..
• 18 Exacoustos C. et al. “Can gray-scale and color Doppler sonography differentiate between uterine leiomyosarcoma and leiomyoma?,”. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2007; 35 (08) DOI: 10.1002/jcu.20386..
• 19 Kim JH. et al. “Sonographic and Clinical Characteristics of Uterine Sarcoma Initially Misdiagnosed as Uterine Fibroid in Women in the Late Reproductive Age,”. J. Menopausal Med 2019; 25 (03) DOI: 10.6118/jmm.19007.. (PMID: 32307942)
• 20 Ludovisi M. et al. “Imaging in gynecological disease (15): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of uterine sarcoma,”. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol 2019; 54 (05) DOI: 10.1002/uog.20270..
• 21 Park GE, Rha SE, Oh SN. et al. “Ultrasonographic findings of low-grade endometrial Stromal sarcoma of the uterus with a focus on cystic degeneration,”. Ultrasonography 2016; 35 (02) DOI: 10.14366/usg.15045..
• 22 Li D. et al. “A real-world study on diagnosis and treatment of uterine sarcoma in Western China,”. Int. J. Biol. Sci 2020; 16 (03) DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.39773..
• 23 Skorstad M, Kent A, Lieng M. “Preoperative evaluation in women with uterine leiomyosarcoma. A nationwide cohort study,”. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand 2016; 95 (11) DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13008.. (PMID: 27564388)
• 24 Köhler G. et al. “Benign uterine mass – discrimination from leiomyosarcoma by a preoperative risk score: a multicenter cohort study,”. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet 2019; 300 (06) DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05344-0..
• 25 Najibi S, Gilani MM, Zamani F. et al. “Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced/DWI MRI and ultrasonography in the differentiation between benign and malignant myometrial tumors,”. Ann. Med. Surg 2021; 70 DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102813..
• 26 Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH. et al. “Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: A consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group,”. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000; 16 (05) DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x..
• 27 Di Cello A. et al. “A more accurate method to interpret lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) isoenzymes’ results in patients with uterine masses,”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol 2019; 236 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.03.017..
• 28 Prat J. “FIGO staging for uterine sarcomas,”. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009; 104 (03) DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.12.008.. (PMID: 19135669)
• 29 Wojtowicz K. et al. “Uterine myomas and sarcomas – clinical and ultrasound characteristics and differential diagnosis using pulsed and color Doppler techniques,”. J. Ultrason 2022; 22 (89) e100-e108 DOI: 10.15557/JoU.2022.0017.. (PMID: 35811590)