Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jun 5.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jan 9;212(6):717–724. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.012

TABLE 3.

Utility of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of uterine sarcomas

Variable Year
published		 n Cases of
sarcoma, n		 Measurement of
interest		 Sensitivity,
%		 Specificity,
%		 Level of
evidence
Ultrasound scan
  Hata et al42 1997 46 5 Intratumoral PSV 41.0 cm/sec 80 97 3
  Szabo et al43 2002 129 12 Intratumoral RI <0.5 67 87 3
  Exacoustos et al40 2007 257 8 Increased central and peripheral vascularity 100 86 3
Magnetic resonance imaging
  Schwartz et al44 1998 45 4 Ill-defined margins 100 100 3
  Tanaka et al45 2004 24 12 High signal intensity of T2 and T1WI 73 100 3
  Sato et al46 2014 81 5 Signal intensity on diffusion weighted imaging + ADC 100 99 3
Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography
  Nagamatsu et al51 2009 53 10 SUV >3.0 100 73 3
  Yamane et al50 2012 15 3 SUV >4.32 100 63 3

ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; PSV, peak systolic velocity; RI, resistance index; SUV, standardized uptake value.

Liu. Critical assessment of morcellation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015.