Abstract
Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) derived from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) may help diagnose endometrial cancer (EC). However, the association between ADC and the recurrence and survival of EC remains unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether pretreatment ADC on DWI could predict the prognosis of women with EC. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane’s Library were searched for relevant cohort studies comparing the clinical outcomes between women with EC having low versus high ADC on pretreatment DWI. Two authors independently conducted data collection, literature searching, and statistical analysis. Using a heterogeneity-incorporating random-effects model, we analyzed the results. In the meta-analysis, 1358 women with EC were included from eight cohort studies and followed for a median duration of 40 months. Pooled results showed that a low pretreatment ADC on DWI was associated with poor disease-free survival (DFS, hazard ratio [HR]: 3.29, 95% CI: 2.04 to 5.31, p < 0.001; I2 = 41%). Subgroup analysis according to study design, tumor stage, MRI Tesla strength, ADC cutoff, follow-up duration, and study quality score showed consistent results (p for subgroup analysis all > 0.05). The predictive value of low ADC for poor DFS in women with EC decreased in multivariate studies compared to univariate studies (HR: 2.59 versus 32.57, p = 0.002). Further studies showed that a low ADC was also associated with poor overall survival (HR: 3.36, 95% CI: 1.33 to 8.50, p = 0.01, I2 = 0). In conclusion, a low ADC on pretreatment DWI examination may predict disease recurrence and survival in women with EC.
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs43032-024-01595-8/MediaObjects/43032_2024_1595_Fig1_HTML.png)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs43032-024-01595-8/MediaObjects/43032_2024_1595_Fig2_HTML.png)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs43032-024-01595-8/MediaObjects/43032_2024_1595_Fig3_HTML.png)
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
- EC:
-
Endometrial cancer
- DWI:
-
Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging
- ADC:
-
Apparent diffusion coefficient
- PRISMA:
-
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- DFS:
-
Disease-free survival
- OS:
-
Overall survival
- HR:
-
Hazard ratio
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
References
Crosbie EJ, Kitson SJ, McAlpine JN, Mukhopadhyay A, Powell ME, Singh N. Endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2022;399:1412–28.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:17–48.
Raglan O, Kalliala I, Markozannes G, Cividini S, Gunter MJ, Nautiyal J, et al. Risk factors for endometrial cancer: an umbrella review of the literature. Int J Cancer. 2019;145:1719–30.
Brooks RA, Fleming GF, Lastra RR, Lee NK, Moroney JW, Son CH, et al. Current recommendations and recent progress in endometrial cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:258–79.
Kovacevic N. Surgical treatment and fertility perservation in endometrial cancer. Radiol Oncol. 2021;55:144–9.
Hamilton CA, Pothuri B, Arend RC, Backes FJ, Gehrig PA, Soliman PT, et al. Endometrial cancer: a society of gynecologic oncology evidence-based review and recommendations. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;160:817–26.
Reijntjes B, van Suijlichem M, Woolderink JM, Bongers MY, Reesink-Peters N, Paulsen L, et al. Recurrence and survival after laparoscopy versus laparotomy without lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial cancer: long-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2022;164:265–70.
Kasius JC, Pijnenborg JMA, Lindemann K, Forsse D, van Zwol J, Kristensen GB et al. Risk stratification of Endometrial Cancer patients: FIGO Stage, biomarkers and molecular classification. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13.
Otero-Garcia MM, Mesa-Alvarez A, Nikolic O, Blanco-Lobato P, Basta-Nikolic M, de Llano-Ortega RM, et al. Role of MRI in staging and follow-up of endometrial and cervical cancer: pitfalls and mimickers. Insights Imaging. 2019;10:19.
Nougaret S, Horta M, Sala E, Lakhman Y, Thomassin-Naggara I, Kido A, et al. Endometrial Cancer MRI staging: updated guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2019;29:792–805.
De Perrot T, Sadjo Zoua C, Glessgen CG, Botsikas D, Berchtold L, Salomir R et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the Genitourinary System. J Clin Med. 2022;11.
Hameeduddin A, Sahdev A. Diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in assessing response and recurrent disease in gynaecological malignancies. Cancer Imaging. 2015;15:3.
Wang YT, Li YC, Yin LL, Pu H. Can Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging predict survival in patients with cervical Cancer? A Meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:2174–81.
Baba A, Kurokawa R, Kurokawa M, Hassan O, Ota Y, Srinivasan A. ADC for differentiation between Posttreatment Changes and Recurrence in Head and Neck Cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2022;43:442–7.
Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2021;www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2010;http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.
Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1148–57.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.
Nakamura K, Joja I, Fukushima C, Haruma T, Hayashi C, Kusumoto T, et al. The preoperative SUVmax is superior to ADCmin of the primary tumour as a predictor of disease recurrence and survival in patients with endometrial cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:52–60.
Fasmer KE, Bjornerud A, Ytre-Hauge S, Gruner R, Tangen IL, Werner HM, et al. Preoperative quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging predict aggressive disease in endometrial cancer. Acta Radiol. 2018;59:1010–7.
Kuwahara R, Kido A, Tanaka S, Abiko K, Nakao K, Himoto Y, et al. A predictor of Tumor recurrence in patients with endometrial Carcinoma after Complete Resection of the Tumor: the role of pretreatment apparent diffusion coefficient. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28:861–8.
Ytre-Hauge S, Dybvik JA, Lundervold A, Salvesen OO, Krakstad C, Fasmer KE, et al. Preoperative tumor texture analysis on MRI predicts high-risk disease and reduced survival in endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;48:1637–47.
Yamada I, Miyasaka N, Kobayashi D, Wakana K, Oshima N, Wakabayashi A, et al. Endometrial carcinoma: texture analysis of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient maps and its correlation with histopathologic findings and prognosis. Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2019;1:e190054.
Quan Q, Lu Y, Xuan B, Wu J, Yin W, Hua Y, et al. The prominent value of apparent diffusion coefficient in assessing high-risk factors and prognosis for patients with endometrial carcinoma before treatment. Acta Radiol. 2021;62:830–8.
Zhang K, Zhang Y, Fang X, Dong J, Qian L. MRI-based radiomics and ADC values are related to recurrence of endometrial carcinoma: a preliminary analysis. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:1266.
Quan Q, Peng H, Gong S, Liu J, Lu Y, Chen R, et al. The Preeminent Value of the apparent diffusion coefficient in assessing high-risk factors and prognosis for stage I endometrial Carcinoma patients. Front Oncol. 2022;12:820904.
Rizzo S, Femia M, Buscarino V, Franchi D, Garbi A, Zanagnolo V, et al. Endometrial cancer: an overview of novelties in treatment and related imaging keypoints for local staging. Cancer Imaging. 2018;18:45.
Nougaret S, Lakhman Y, Vargas HA, Colombo PE, Fujii S, Reinhold C, et al. From staging to prognostication: Achievements and challenges of MR Imaging in the Assessment of Endometrial Cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25:611–33.
Gui B, Lupinelli M, Russo L, Micco M, Avesani G, Panico C, et al. MRI in uterine cancers with uncertain origin: endometrial or cervical? Radiological point of view with review of the literature. Eur J Radiol. 2022;153:110357.
Inada Y, Matsuki M, Nakai G, Tatsugami F, Tanikake M, Narabayashi I, et al. Body diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer: is it helpful in the detection of cancer in nonenhanced MR imaging? Eur J Radiol. 2009;70:122–7.
Moharamzad Y, Davarpanah AH, Yaghobi Joybari A, Shahbazi F, Esmaeilian Toosi L, Kooshkiforooshani M, et al. Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating endometrial carcinoma from benign lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46:1115–28.
Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, Umeoka S, Mikami Y, Fujii S, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:682–7.
Rechichi G, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, Franzesi CT, Perego P, Valsecchi MG, et al. Endometrial cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with tumor grade, depth of myometrial invasion, and presence of lymph node metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:256–62.
Javadian P, Washington C, Mukasa S, Benbrook DM. Histopathologic, genetic and molecular characterization of endometrial Cancer racial disparity. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13.
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
This work was supported by the Research Project of Qingdao University Medical Group Co., Ltd. (grant number YLJT20231003).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Peng Liu, **ujie Wang, and Deyin Zhai designed the study; Yihua Liu, **ujie Wang, and Zheng Zhang performed database search, data collection, and study quality evaluation; Zheng Zhang, Yangang Sheng, Ruining Jiao, and Deyin Zhai performed statistical analysis; Peng Liu, Yihua Liu, and **ujie Wang interpreted the results; Junlian Wang and Deyin Zhai wrote the initial draft; **ujie Wang revised the manuscript; Peng Liu was the primary person responsible for the final content. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethics Approval
Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this is a meta-analysis.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhai, D., Wang, X., Wang, J. et al. Apparent Diffusion Coefficient on Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Predict the Prognosis of Patients with Endometrial Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Reprod. Sci. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-024-01595-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-024-01595-8