Transvaginal ultrasound assessment of myometrial and cervical stromal invasion in women with endometrial cancer: interobserver reproducibility among ultrasound experts and gynecologists.

OBJECTIVES: To assess interobserver reproducibility among ultrasound experts and gynecologists in the prediction by transvaginal ultrasound of deep myometrial and cervical stromal invasion in women with endometrial cancer. METHODS: Sonographic videoclips of the uterine corpus and cervix of 53 women with endometrial cancer, examined preoperatively by the same ultrasound expert, were integrated into a digitalized survey. Nine ultrasound experts and nine gynecologists evaluated presence or absence of deep myometrial and cervical stromal invasion. Histopathology from hysterectomy specimens was used as the gold standard. RESULTS: Compared with gynecologists, ultrasound experts showed higher sensitivity, specificity and agreement with histopathology in the assessment of cervical stromal invasion (42% (95% CI, 31-53%) vs 57% (95% CI, 45-68%), P < 0.01; 83% (95% CI, 78-86%) vs 87% (95% CI, 83-90%), P = 0.02; and kappa, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.40-0.49) vs 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.62), P < 0.001, respectively) but not of deep myometrial invasion (73% (95% CI, 66-79%) vs 73% (95% CI, 66-79%), P = 1.0; 70% (95% CI, 65-75%) vs 69% (95% CI, 63-74%), P = 0.68; and kappa, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.44-0.53) vs 0.52 (95% CI, 0.48-0.57), P = 0.11, respectively). Though interobserver reproducibility (in the context of test proportions 'good' and 'very good', according to kappa) regarding deep myometrial invasion did not differ between the groups (experts, 34% vs gynecologists, 22%, P = 0.13), ultrasound experts assessed cervical stromal invasion with significantly greater interobserver reproducibility than did gynecologists (53% vs 14%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Preoperative ultrasound assessment of deep myometrial and cervical stromal invasion in endometrial cancer is best performed by ultrasound experts, as, compared with gynecologists, they showed a greater degree of agreement with histopathology and greater interobserver reproducibility in the assessment of cervical stromal invasion.

Epidemiology and prognosis of ovarian metastases in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines for prophylactic oophorectomy in women with colorectal cancer are lacking. The aim of this population-based cohort study was to report on the prevalence, incidence and prognosis of ovarian metastases from colorectal cancer, providing information relevant to the discussion of prophylactic oophorectomy. METHODS: All 4566 women with colorectal cancer in Stockholm County during 1995-2006 were included and followed until 2008. Prospectively collected data regarding clinical characteristics, treatment and outcome were obtained from the Regional Quality Registry. RESULTS: The prevalence of ovarian metastases at the time of diagnosis of colorectal cancer was 1.1 per cent (34 of 3172) among women with colonic cancer and 0.6 per cent (8 of 1394) among those with rectal cancer (P = 0.105). After radical resection of stage I-III colorectal cancer, metachronous ovarian metastases were found during follow-up in 1.1 per cent (22 of 1971) with colonic cancer and 0.1 per cent (1 of 881) with rectal cancer (P = 0.006). Survival in patients with ovarian metastases was poor. CONCLUSION: Ovarian metastases from colorectal cancer are uncommon.

Preoperative sexual function in women with rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Even though sexual dysfunction has been reported after rectal cancer treatment, information on preoperative sexual function is scarce, particularly in female patients. AIMS: To describe preoperative sexual function in women with rectal cancer, and to analyse potential sources of bias. METHODS: The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) was administered to women with newly diagnosed non-metastatic rectal cancer, irrespective of whether they were sexually active or not. FSFI total and domain scores were calculated for women with complete responses to the corresponding items. Data were compared for those who did and did not complete all the FSFI domains, and for women in the study cohort, and those who were eligible for inclusion but not included. RESULTS: Sexual inactivity was common. Mean FSFI total score was low (16.4 ± 10.6 SD) among the women who completed all six FSFI domains. The proportion of women who had a partner was higher in this group compared with those who did not complete all the domains (49 of 57 vs 7 of 25, p < 0.001). Eighty-two of the 157 women eligible for inclusion were included. Included women were younger (p = 0.002) and had less co-morbidity than those who were not included (p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: The low FSFI total score indicates sexual dysfunction. However, the use of FSFI in both women who are and who are not sexually active complicates interpretation of the data and may result in an information bias hampering internal validity. External validity may be limited by selection bias.