ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2026
Comparison of three-tesla magnetic resonance imaging with pathology in detecting deep myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer and revealing causes of discrepancy.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of three-tesla (3T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in determining deep myometrial invasion (DMI) in endometrial cancer (EC) cases and to reveal possible causes of discrepancy.
methodsPatients with EC who underwent preoperative pelvic MRI examination at a tertiary hospital were independently and blindly reviewed for DMI by two radiologists with differing levels of expertise. On MRI, the invasion of the endometrial mass into the myometrium was defined as superficial or deep (<50% or ≥50%) and was compared with the gold standard pathology reports, evaluated using the same criteria. Cases with discrepancies between MRI and pathology were re-evaluated, and the causes of the discrepancies were identified.
resultsA total of 226 patients were included. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of MRI in detecting DMI were calculated as 77%, 93%, 84%, 88%, and 87%, respectively. In cases where radiology and pathology results were incompatible, expansile masses were found in 38%, myomas located near the lesion in 27%, masses located in the uterine horn in 21%, and in 14%, a specific cause explaining the error could not be identified.
conclusionMRI is the definitive diagnostic method for determining DMI. Awareness of these causes of discrepancy in MRI reporting can increase the value of the examination and contribute to patient management. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights that 3T MRI has a high accuracy (87%) in detecting DMI in EC and demonstrates that analyzing misinterpretations can enhance reliability in patient management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.