Prediction of Patient Outcomes in Locally Advanced Cervical Carcinoma Following Chemoradiotherapy—Comparative Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 2-Deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose Imaging

Purpose: To evaluate the utility and comparative effectiveness of three five-point qualitative scoring systems for assessing response on PET-CT and MRI imaging individually and in combination, following curative-intent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Their performance in the prediction of subsequent patient outcomes was also assessed; Methods: Ninety-seven patients with histologically confirmed LACC treated with CRT using standard institutional protocols at a single centre who underwent PET-CT and MRI at staging and post treatment were identified retrospectively from an institutional database. The post-CRT imaging studies were independently reviewed, and response assessed using five-point scoring tools for T2WI, DWI, and FDG PET-CT. Patient characteristics, staging, treatment, and follow-up details including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes were collected. To compare diagnostic performance metrics, a two-proportion z-test was employed. A Kaplan–Meier analysis (Mantel–Cox log-rank) was performed. Results: The T2WI (p < 0.00001, p < 0.00001) and DWI response scores (p < 0.00001, p = 0.0002) had higher specificity and accuracy than the PET-CT. The T2WI score had the highest positive predictive value (PPV), while the negative predictive value (NPV) was consistent across modalities. The combined MR scores maintained high NPV, PPV, specificity, and sensitivity, and the PET/MR consensus scores showed superior diagnostic accuracy and specificity compared to the PET-CT score alone (p = 0.02926, p = 0.0083). The Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed significant differences in the PFS based on the T2WI (p < 0.001), DWI (p < 0.001), combined MR (p = 0.003), and PET-CT/MR consensus scores (p < 0.001) and in the OS for the T2WI (p < 0.001), DWI (p < 0.001), and combined MR scores (p = 0.031) between responders and non-responders. Conclusion: Post-CRT response assessment using qualitative MR scoring and/or consensus PET-CT and MRI scoring was a better predictor of outcome compared to PET-CT assessment alone. This requires validation in a larger prospective study but offers the potential to help stratify patient follow-up in the future.