Abstract
Due to deficiencies of clinical staging, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is being increasingly used in the pre-treatment work-up of cervical cancer. Lymph node status, as evaluated by advanced imaging modalities, is also being incorporated into management algorithms. Familiarity with MR imaging features will lead to more accurate staging of cervical cancer. Awareness of impact of staging on management will enable the radiologists to tailor the report to clinically and surgically relevant information. This article emphasizes the guidelines on the MR staging criteria, dependence of newer treatments on imaging staging and lymph node involvement, and MR imaging in post-treatment surveillance of cervical cancer.
Keywords: Cervical cancer, MR imaging, staging
Introduction
Cancer of the cervix is the only gynecological cancer staged clinically, in accordance with the modified classification of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO). Clinical staging (Table 1), however, has inherent deficiencies in evaluation of several parameters critical for treatment planning, including parametrial and pelvic side-wall invasion, and size of endocervical tumors[1]. It also disregards lymph node status, the most important prognostic factor in all stages[2–4]. These shortcomings, coupled with emergence of newer treatment options has encouraged the incorporation of cross-sectional imaging into evaluation and treatment planning of cervical cancer patients.
Table 1.
FIGO clinical staging of cervical carcinoma
| 0 | Carcinoma in situ, intraepithelial | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Carcinoma strictly confined to cervix | ||
| IA | Preclinical tumors (i.e., diagnosed only with microscopy) | ||
| IA1 | Invasion ≤3 mm in depth, ≤7 mm horizontal | ||
| IA2 | Invasion >3 mm but ≤5 mm in depth, ≤7 mm horizontal | ||
| IB | Confined to cervix or lesions greater than stage IA | ||
| IB1 | Clinical lesions ≤4 cm | ||
| IB2 | Clinical lesions >4 cm | ||
| II | Extension beyond the cervix but not to pelvic wall or lower third of vagina | ||
| IIA | No obvious parametrial involvement | ||
| IIB | Obvious parametrial involvement | ||
| III | Carcinoma extending to pelvic wall, lower third of vagina or causing hydronephrosis | ||
| IIIA | Involvement of lower third of vagina, but not pelvic wall | ||
| IIIB | Extension to pelvic wall or hydronephrosis | ||
| IV | Extension beyond true pelvis or involving mucosa of bladder or rectum | ||
| IVA | Invasion of bladder or rectal mucosa | ||
| IVB | Distant metastasis | ||
Imaging modalities
MR imaging is regarded as the most reliable modality for the pre-treatment work-up of cervical cancer. Although a large multicenter trial has shown helical computed tomography and MR imaging to have a comparable staging accuracy, helical CT had much greater interobserver variability when compared to MR imaging in the same patient population[5–7]. Due to its superior soft-tissue resolution and multiplanar capability, MR imaging provides a “one-stop” assessment of local disease extent[6,8]. MR should be performed as part of the pre-treatment evaluation for tumors larger than 2 cm, in endocervical lesions, and in obese or pregnant patients[9].
Staging
The T2 weighted image (T2WI) may be normal in micro-invasive (stage Ia) carcinomas.
Once abnormal increased signal is observed on axial scans, the tumor is usually at least a stage Ib, which is a clinically invasive tumor confined to the cervix without invasion of the vagina or parametrium. Stromal invasion of more than 5 mm is almost always detected on T2WI[10], and T1-dynamic imaging can detect stromal invasion of 3 mm or more with a 93% sensitivity[11]. At this stage, the most important determinant of surgical treatment is parametrial involvement and tumor size. Parametrial invasion can only be inferred from the appearance of the peripheral stromal hypointense rim. With partial stromal involvement, a rim of hypointensity surrounds the hyperintense tumor. When the thickness of this low signal intensity rim is greater than 3 mm, the “hypointense rim” sign is very specific (96–99%) for excluding parametrial invasion (Fig. 1), labeling the lesion as a “definitive Ib”[12–17]. Complete disruption of the low-signal stripe is a much less specific sign, with a positive predictive value of only 50%[12]. In tumors with such “full-thickness stromal invasion” but no parameterial mass, parametrial invasion is present in 40–73%. Dynamic MR imaging[18] and size criteria have been shown to improve the accuracy of parametrial invasion detection in this setting. A craniocaudal diameter of more than 3 cm for full-thickness tumors, measured on thin-section short-axis T2WI through the cervix[19], is 89% accurate for this purpose. Parametrial invasion is also favored with small tumor extensions beyond the cervical contour, tumor protrusion, irregular margins and abutment or encasement of periuterine vessels in supravaginal tumors. With tumors confined to the portio vaginalis, intact vaginal fornices argue against parametrial involvement. The accuracy of MRI ranges between 77 and 96% in detecting parametrial spread[13,14,20–23], although microscopic invasion always remains a possibility with full-thickness stromal involvement. The highest accuracy is seen in small tumors, in which preservation of an intact dark stromal ring has a negative predictive value of 94–100% in excluding parametrial invasion[13,14]. False positives can result from hemorrhage following biopsy. In larger tumors, peripheral edema might obscure the real boundary of the lesion and cervical stroma can be compressed into a thin margin, leading to over- or under-staging[24].
Figure 1.
Stage Ib. (a) Sagittal and (b) axial T2WI demonstrate a predominantly hyperintense soft tissue mass (arrow) within the cervical canal. There is no disruption of the peripheral stromal hypointense rim.
Once the tumor is assigned to stage Ib by exclusion of parametrial and vaginal involvement, tumor size needs to be taken into account as a crucial determinant of management. Clinical exam even under anesthesia is a poor estimate of the actual tumor size[25]. MR dimensions have been shown to be within 5 mm of surgical size in 70–90% of cases[17,26,27], with an overall accuracy of 93% in predicting tumor size[14]. In addition, clinical exam only provides dimensions in the axial plane, and not in the usual cranio-caudal orientation of the tumor axis. When using the cut-off value of 4 cm, the cranio-caudal diameter has been shown to be a more significant prognostic factor[28] than the axial size because of higher association with endometrial and lymph node involvement. MR can also be used to calculate the tumor volume as a prognostic factor, with 91% 5-year survival in tumors smaller than 2.5 cm3 and 70% for tumors between 10 cm3 and 50 cm3[25].
In stage II, the tumor has grown beyond the uterus but still has not infiltrated the pelvic side wall or the lower third of the vagina. At stage IIa the tumor infiltrates the upper vagina without parametrial invasion. Parametrial infiltration classifies the tumor as stage IIb (Fig. 2). For supravaginal cervical tumors, the presence of an irregular margin or abutment or encasement of periuterine vessels suggest parametrial spread (Fig. 3). For tumors confined to the portio vaginalis, disruption of the vaginal wall is suggestive of parametrial spread[29]. Accuracy of MR imaging in detection of parametrial invasion falls to 74% in stage IIa and higher tumors, still remaining superior to clinical examination (53% accuracy)[14].
Figure 2.
Stage II-b. (a) Sagittal T2WI shows a hyperintense mass involving the posterior lip of the cervix. (b) On the short-axis T2WI, the fibrous stroma is completely disrupted posteriorly and towards the left, with tumor extension into the parametrium (arrow).
Figure 3.
Stage IIb. (a) Sagittal T2WI demonstrates a 4.5 cm cervical mass extending inferiorly to involve the upper two-thirds of the vagina. The posterior fat plane between the mass and the rectum, and the low signal intensity of the bladder wall remain intact. (b) On the axial T2WI image, parametrial invasion manifests as complete disruption of the fibrous stroma on the left with margin irregularity (arrow).
MR imaging is highly sensitive (86–93%) in depiction of vaginal infiltration[14]. Large tumors may cause a diagnostic challenge by stretching the vaginal fornices and falsely suggesting invasion. MR imaging of vaginal involvement is less crucial as clinical examination accuracy has been shown to be very high[30].
Stage III carcinomas invade the lower third of the vagina, extend to the pelvic side wall, or involve the ureter to cause hydronephrosis. In stage IIIa, the tumor only involves the lower third of the vagina. Occasionally, disruption of the anterior vaginal wall leads to infiltration of the bladder wall, without mucosal involvement[31]. In stage IIIb the pelvic side wall or the ureters are involved (Fig. 4), with obliteration of the entire cardinal ligament and extension to pelvic musculature or iliac vessels. Presence of tumor within 3 mm of the internal obturator, levator ani, and pyriform muscles or the iliac vessels[1,28] is suggestive of stage IIIb disease. Increased signal in pelvic muscles and fine strands of tissue between the tumor and pelvic muscles are additional features of stage IIIb lesions.
Figure 4.
Stage IIIb. (a) Axial T2WI demonstrates a bulky cervical mass, completely replacing the cervical fibrous stroma. There is parametrial invasion on the left, evidenced by indistinct tumor borders and soft tissue (arrowhead) extending into the parametrium. The right tumor boundary is more well defined and smooth, however, encasement of parametrial vessels (long thin arrow) indicates parametrial invasion. (b) A more cephalad image demonstrates an enlarged external iliac lymph node (arrowhead) and hydroureter (long thin arrow) due to lateral extension of tumor.
In stage IVa, the tumor invades the vesical or rectal mucosa. Bladder invasion is seen as segmental disruption of the hypointense vesical wall[16,17,32]. When bullous edema is present, it appears as a hyperintense band along the interior surface of the bladder wall[8]. MR imaging is highly accurate (99%) in detection of bladder invasion, with a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 99%[33]. Findings suggestive of invasion are obliteration of the hypointense bladder wall, nodularity and irregularity of the wall, masses protruding into the lumen, high signal in the anterior part of the posterior wall, abnormal strands in the uterovesical space and vesicovaginal fistula. Preservation of hypointensity in the wall, sparing of perivesical fat and an intact vesicouterine ligament make bladder invasion unlikely. Again, due to the edema masquerading as the tumor, increased signal in these structures is a less reliable sign of tumoral involvement. Dynamic imaging has been used to improve the accuracy of bladder invasion in problematic cases[23].
As the pouch of Douglas separates the posterior fornix from the rectum, direct invasion of the rectum is uncommonly seen; uterosacral ligaments provide the preferred route for rectal invasion.
Stage IVb is characterized by distant para-aortic or inguinal lymph node metastases although the latter do not change the FIGO stage. Lymphangitic carcinomatosis of the lung or hepatic metastases can be seen in advanced disease, best evaluated by CT scan[30].
Lymph node assessment
Lymph node involvement is the most important prognostic factor in cervical cancer. Para-aortic node metastasis calls for extension of the radiation field to this region, which because of intestinal morbidity is not routinely included in the treatment field. It is also an important determinant of adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery. As this combined treatment generates complications with uncertain survival benefit, identification of nodal metastasis is crucial in proper selection of these patients for primary radiation therapy[34,35]. Risk of nodal metastasis increases with tumor size, depth of stromal invasion, lymphovascular invasion and parametrial disease[36–38].
The only generally accepted criterion for diagnosis of pelvic node metastasis is size. From a range of 6–15 mm, 10 mm is the most valid upper limit for short axis of normal nodes. For round nodes, 8 mm is typically used as a cut-off value[1,39–43]. However, CT and MR imaging fail to differentiate reactive enlargement (in bulky necrotic tumors) from malignant infiltration, and more importantly, they lack the resolution to detect micrometastases in normal sized nodes. Therefore, advanced techniques such as iron oxide-enhanced MRI lymphography or single and dual-phase positron emission tomography (PET) have been attempted to more accurately assess nodal status of cervical tumors.
Ultrasmall super-paramagnetic iron oxide (USPIO) increases the sensitivity of nodal metastasis detection by MR imaging, without loss of specificity: on a node-by-node basis, the sensitivity increases from 29% to 82–93% and on a patient-by-patient basis, from 27% to 91–100%44–46. High specificity is maintained at 94% and 97% for nodal and patient based diagnoses, respectively. Microlesions are still missed due to inherent resolution limitations of MR imaging, as well as contrast–dose dependent susceptibility artifacts. Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET has a sensitivity of 86–91% for detection of metastases in both pelvic and para-aortic nodes, compared to a sensitivity of 57% for CT[47] and 73% for MR imaging[48]. A strong correlation has been found between FDG-PET lymph node findings and patient survival[49,50]]]. Overall, PET imaging seems to be increasingly incorporated into cervical cancer care, either in routine diagnostic evaluation[49] or as a supplemental investigation in high-risk patients with enlarged pelvic lymph nodes but no obviously enlarged para-aortic lymph nodes on CT or MR imaging[50].
Management
Pre-invasive lesions and stage 0 cancers are ablated or excised by loop electrosurgery, conization, or cryosurgery[51].
In stage Ia, the major determinants of treatment are fertility and lymphovascular invasion. For patients who have completed childbearing, the treatment of choice remains extrafascial hysterectomy without nodal dissection[53]. However, with higher detection of early invasive cervical cancer, increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma especially in younger women and the tendency for women to delay childbearing, the impact of cervical cancer on fertility is escalating. In stage Ia1, with invasion no deeper than 3 mm below the basement membrane, the rates of parametrial and pelvic lymph node involvement are negligible (less than 1%). With a favorable 95–98% survival rate, loss of fertility becomes the prime concern in this group of patients. In the absence of lymphovascular invasion, conization can be offered as a fertility-preserving treatment to these patients[54].
In stage Ia2 there is higher risk of lymph node metastasis (2–8%), and treatment must ensure the removal of all lymph node-bearing pelvic tissue through pelvic lymph node dissection and parametrectomy. If fertility is no longer desired, most experts would advise radical hysterectomy or radiotherapy as treatment[52]. When fertility is a concern, conization is no longer suitable as it leaves the parametrium in place, and radical trachelectomy is considered the best fertility-sparing option, also suitable for stage Ia1 lesions with lymphovascular invasion[55]. In trachelectomy candidates, the relationship of the proximal extent of the tumor to the internal os and lower uterine body becomes a critical determinant, best assessed by MR imaging[56]. MR imaging has a sensitivity of 86–100% and a specificity of 96–100%[14,55] in depicting the proximal relationship of tumor to the internal os, best seen in the sagittal plane. Spread of the tumor to the body of the uterus, defined as extension of tumor across the internal os, expansion of the endometrial cavity or disruption of the normal uterine zonal anatomy will make the patient unsuitable for radical trachelectomy. During surgery, a tumor free margin of 8 mm on frozen section is considered safe without any need to remove additional cervical tissue. A “close” margin is defined as an upper free margin less than 5 mm. While these measurements have not been correlated with tumor clearance of internal os on MR imaging, a distance of at least 1 cm between the upper limit of tumor and the internal os can be considered as an MR imaging eligibility criteria for trachelectomy.
Stage Ib1 is still considered early-stage cervical cancer. Tumor size, depth of stromal invasion, lymphovascular invasion and the nodal status are now accepted as prognostic factors[35,57,58]. Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection is the standard operation for node-negative early-stage cervical cancer. Trachelectomy can be offered to patients with a tumor smaller than 2 cm and without lymphovascular invasion, as both size ≥2 cm and lymphovascular invasion are risk factors for recurrence.
In stage I tumors, primary radiotherapy offers cure rates equivalent to those with radical hysterectomy. Stage Ib2 tumors, the so-called bulky (>4 cm) or barrel shaped tumors, have higher rates of pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastasis. They usually extend beyond the tumoricidal isodose curve of brachytherapy and areas of hypoxia render radiotherapy less effective. Chemoradiation therapy has been shown to improve survival in stage Ib2 and II disease and is the standard treatment for bulky (stage Ib2 to IVa) disease[59].
Patients with stage IVb disease are offered chemoradiation as a means of helping to control central disease, with radiotherapy for palliation of metastatic lesions. Pelvic exenteration is the standard treatment for pelvic recurrences after radiation therapy. It has a high morbidity rate and therefore is considered only if the cancer is deemed “curable”, with no extra-pelvic disease and free margins[60]. Pelvic recurrence after surgery can be treated with radiotherapy if not given previously. Isolated pulmonary metastasis or isolated central recurrence may be considered potentially curable.
Post-treatment imaging and detection of recurrence
Early, non-invasive and accurate assessment of recurrence is crucial for proper selection of salvage treatment versus palliation, improved survival and quality of life, and optimized resource allocation. It is desirable to identify recurrences before symptoms develop, as survival decreases once they become symptomatic. However, clinical post-treatment surveillance of asymptomatic patients is problematic. Therefore patients are usually followed after primary treatment with CT or MR imaging61–66. MR imaging is superior to CT in demonstrating pelvic recurrences[13,64,67–69].
The majority of recurrences occur within the pelvis. For detection of recurrent disease, T2WI is highly sensitive (90–91%)[70,71] but has a low specificity (22–38%). During the first few months, widening of the endocervical canal, high signal within the cervical stroma due to edema and inflammation[65,72] and early fibrosis with abundant granulation tissue could mimic residual or recurrent tumor[66,73]. Although serial imaging can help to confirm the stable or fading nature of inflammation or fibrosis[65], imaging-guided biopsies may be required in some cases for diagnosis. In patients in whom there is complete reconstitution of the low signal intensity stroma on MR imaging (Fig. 5), recurrent disease can be excluded with a greater than 95% negative predictive value[65].
Figure 5.
Post-radiation changes. (a) Pre-treatment sagittal T2WI shows a bulky exophytic cervical mass with upper vaginal invasion. (b) Two months after radiation therapy, there is complete reconstitution of the cervical stroma with homogenous low signal. Superiorly, hematometra has developed secondary to cervical stenosis. Bladder wall thickening represents post-radiation changes.
References
- 1.Hricak H, Yu KK. Radiology in invasive cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1101–8. doi: 10.2214/ajr.167.5.8911159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Stehman F, Bundy B, DiSaia P, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix treated with irradiation therapy: I. A multivariate analysis of prognostic variables in the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Cancer. 1991;67:2776–85. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19910601)67:11<2776::aid-cncr2820671111>3.0.co;2-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kupets R, Covens A. Is the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for cervical carcinoma able to predict survival in patients with cervical carcinoma? An assessment of clinimetric properties. Cancer. 2001;92:796–804. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20010815)92:4<796::aid-cncr1385>3.0.co;2-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Yuan CC, Wang PH, Lai CR, Yen MS, Chen CY, Juang CM. Prognosis-predicting system based on factors related to survival of cervical carcinoma. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1998;63:163–7. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7292(98)00142-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9329–37. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.0354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Amendola MA, Hricak H, Mitchell DG, et al. Utilization of diagnostic studies in the pretreatment evaluation of invasive cervical cancer in the United States: results of intergroup protocol ACRIN 6651/GOG 183. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7454–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.5397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Pannu HK, Fishman EK. Evaluation of cervical cancer by computed tomography: current status. Cancer. 2003;98(9 Suppl):2039–43. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Scheidler J, Heuck AF. Imaging of cancer of the cervix. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002;40:577–90. doi: 10.1016/s0033-8389(01)00007-0. vii. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hricak H. Widespread use of MRI in gynecology: a myth or reality? Abdom Imaging. 1997;22:579–88. doi: 10.1007/s002619900267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Fujiwara K, Yoden E, Asakawa T, et al. Negative MRI findings with invasive cervical biopsy may indicate stage IA cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;79:451–6. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2000.5967. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Seki H, Azumi R, Kimura M, Sakai K. Stromal invasion by carcinoma of the cervix: assessment with dynamic MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:1579–85. doi: 10.2214/ajr.168.6.9168730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kim SH, Choi BI, Han JK, et al. Preoperative staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR imaging in 99 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1993;17:633–40. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199307000-00022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kim SH, Choi BI, Lee HP, et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR findings. Radiology. 1990;175:45–51. doi: 10.1148/radiology.175.1.2315503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, Chang YC, Winkler ML, Stern JL. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MRI and surgical findings. Radiology. 1988;166:623–31. doi: 10.1148/radiology.166.3.3340756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lien HH, Blomlie V, Kjorstad K, Abeler V, Kaalhus O. Clinical stage I carcinoma of the cervix: value of MRI in determining degree of invasiveness. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156:1191–4. doi: 10.2214/ajr.156.6.2028866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Sironi S, Belloni C, Taccagni GL, Del Maschio A. Carcinoma of the cervix: value of MRI in detecting parametrial involvement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156:753–6. doi: 10.2214/ajr.156.4.2003441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Togashi K, Nishimura K, Sagoh T, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: staging with MRI. Radiology. 1989;171:245–51. doi: 10.1148/radiology.171.1.2928532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Iwata S, Joja I, Okuno K, et al. Cervical carcinoma with full-thickness stromal invasion: efficacy of dynamic MR imaging in the assessment of parametrial involvement. Radiat Med. 2002;20:247–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Shiraiwa M, Joja I, Asakawa T, et al. Cervical carcinoma: efficacy of thin-section oblique axial T2-weighted images for evaluating parametrial invasion. Abdom Imaging. 1999;24:514–9. doi: 10.1007/s002619900552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sironi S, De Cobelli F, Scarfone G, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: value of plain and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging in assessing degree of invasiveness. Radiology. 1993;188:797–801. doi: 10.1148/radiology.188.3.8351350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Scheidler J, Heuck AF, Steinborn M, Kimmig R, Reiser MF. Parametrial invasion in cervical carcinoma: evaluation of detection at MRI with fat suppression. Radiology. 1998;206:125–9. doi: 10.1148/radiology.206.1.9423661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sheu M, Chang C, Wang J, Yen M. MR staging of clinical stage I and IIa cervical carcinoma: a reappraisal of efficacy and pitfalls. Eur J Radiol. 2001;38:225–31. doi: 10.1016/s0720-048x(00)00278-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Hawighorst H, Knapstein PG, Weikel W, et al. Cervical carcinoma: comparison of standard and pharmokinetic MR imaging. Radiology. 1996;201:531–9. doi: 10.1148/radiology.201.2.8888254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kaur H, Silverman PM, Iyer RB, Verschraegen CF, Eifel PJ, Charnsangavej C. Diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1621–31. doi: 10.2214/ajr.180.6.1801621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Burghardt E, Baltzer J, Tulusan AH, Haas J. Results of surgical treatment of 1028 cervical cancers studied with volumetry. Cancer. 1992;70:648–55. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19920801)70:3<648::aid-cncr2820700318>3.0.co;2-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, Azizi L, Stern JL. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86:43–50. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00109-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hawnaur JM, Johnson RJ, Buckley CH, Tindall V, Isherwood I. Staging, volume estimation, and assessment of nodal status in carcinoma of the cervix: comparison of magnetic imaging with surgical findings. Clin Radiol. 1994;49:443–52. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)81738-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hayashi T, Kato T. Usefulness of tumor size on MR imaging in assessing the prognosis of uterine cervical cancer treated with radiation. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi. 1999;59:250–5. (in Japanese) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Togashi K, Morikawa K, Kataoka LM, Konishi J. Cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8:391–7. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1880080219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Boss EA, Barentsz JO, Massuger LF, Boonstra H. The role of MR imaging in invasive cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:256–70. doi: 10.1007/s003300050042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Okamoto Y, Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Yoshikawa H, Itai Y. MR imaging of the uterine cervix: imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2003;23:425–45. doi: 10.1148/rg.232025065. (quiz 534–5) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Narayan K, McKenzie A, Fisher R, Susil B, Jobling T, Bernshaw D. Estimation of tumor volume in cervical cancer by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Clin Oncol. 2003;26:e163–8. doi: 10.1097/01.coc.0000091358.78047.b5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kim SH, Han MC. Invasion of the urinary bladder by uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation with MR imaging. AJR. 1997;168:393–7. doi: 10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:535–40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02250-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Bjornsson BJ, Nelson BE, Reale FR, Rose PG. Accuracy of frozen section for lymph node metastasis in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 1993;51:50–3. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1993.1245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Delgado G, Bundy BN, Fowler WC, et al. A prospective surgical pathological study of stage I squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;35:314–20. doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(89)90070-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Inoue T. Prognostic significance of the depth of invasion relating to nodal metastases, parametrial extension, and cell types. A study of 628 cases with stage IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 1984;54:3035–42. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19841215)54:12<3035::aid-cncr2820541236>3.0.co;2-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Trattner M, Graf AH, Lax S, et al. Prognostic factors in surgically treated stage Ib–IIb cervical carcinomas with special emphasis on the importance of tumor volume. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;82:11–16. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2001.6252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Vinnicombe SJ, Norman AR, Nicolson V, Husband JE. Normal pelvic lymph nodes: evaluation with CT after bipedal lymphangiography. Radiology. 1995;194:349–55. doi: 10.1148/radiology.194.2.7824709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Magnusson A. Size of normal retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Acta Radiol Diagn. 1983;24:315–18. doi: 10.1177/028418518302400407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Lien HH. MR imaging of invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Acta Radiol. 1999;40:236–45. doi: 10.3109/02841859909175548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Kim SH, Kim SC, Byung IC, Han MC. Uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastasis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1994;190:807–11. doi: 10.1148/radiology.190.3.8115631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Roy C, Le Bras Y, Mangold L, et al. Small pelvic lymph node metastases: evaluation with MR imaging. Clin Radiol. 1997;52:437–40. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(97)80004-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Vassallo P, Matei C, Heston WD, McLachlan SJ, Koutcher JA, Castellino RA. Characterization of reactive versus tumor-bearing lymph nodes with interstitial magnetic resonance lymphography in an animal model. Invest Radiol. 1995;30:706–11. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199512000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Bellin MF, Roy C, Kinkel K, et al. Lymph node metastases: safety and effectiveness of MR imaging with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles – initial clinical experience. Radiology. 1998;207:799–808. doi: 10.1148/radiology.207.3.9609907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Rockall AG, Sohaib SA, Harisinghani MG, et al. Diagnostic performance of nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in patients with endometrial and cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2813–21. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Sugawara Y, Eisbruch A, Kosuda S, et al. Evaluation of FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1125–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, et al. Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: Detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology. 2001;218:776–82. doi: 10.1148/radiology.218.3.r01mr19776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. FDG-PET evaluation of carcinoma of the cervix. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:105–9. doi: 10.1016/s1095-0397(99)00008-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3745–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.17.3745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Tsai CS, Chang TC, Lai CH, et al. Preliminary report of using FDG-PET to detect extrapelvic lesions in cervical cancer patients with enlarged pelvic lymph nodes on MRI/CT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;58:1506–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Herzog TJ. New approaches for the management of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90(3 Pt 2):S22–7. doi: 10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00466-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Waggoner SE. Cervical cancer. Lancet. 2003;361:2217–25. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13778-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Tseng CJ, Horng SG, Soong YK, Hsueh S, Hsieh CH, Lin HW. Conservative conization for microinvasive carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176:1009–10. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70394-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Morice P, Castaigne D. Advances in the surgical management of invasive cervical cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:5–12. doi: 10.1097/00001703-200502000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Peppercorn PD, Jeyarajah AR, Woolas R, et al. Role of MR imaging in the selection of patients with early cervical carcinoma for fertility-preserving surgery: initial experience. Radiology. 1999;212:395–9. doi: 10.1148/radiology.212.2.r99au01395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Grisaru DA, Covens A, Franssen E, et al. Histopathologic score predicts recurrence free survival after radical surgery in patients with stage IA2–IB1_2 cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;97:1904–8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Ho CM, Chien TY, Huang SH, et al. Multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors and outcomes in early cervical cancer patients undergoing radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93:458–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.01.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Green JA, Kirwan JM, Tierney JF, et al. Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2001;358:781–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05965-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Stehman FB, Rose PG, Greer BE, et al. Innovations in the treatment of invasive cervical cancer. Cancer. 2003;98(9 Suppl):2052–63. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Heron CW, Husband JE, Williams MP, Dobbs HJ, Cosgrove DO. The value of CT in the diagnosis of recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Clin Radiol. 1988;39:496–501. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(88)80211-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Walsh JW, Amendola MA, Hall DJ, Tisnado J, Goplerud DR. Recurrent carcinoma of the cervix: CT diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;136:117–122. doi: 10.2214/ajr.136.1.117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Sugimura K, Okizuka H. Postsurgical pelvis: treatment follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002;40:659–80. doi: 10.1016/s0033-8389(01)00016-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK. CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. RadioGraphics. 2001;21:1155–68. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.21.5.g01se311155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Weber TM, Sostman HD, Spritzer CE, et al. Cervical carcinoma: determination of recurrent tumor extent versus radiation changes with MR imaging. Radiology. 1995;194:135–9. doi: 10.1148/radiology.194.1.7997540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Flueckiger F, Ebner F, Poschauko H, Tamussino K, Einspieler R, Ranner G. Cervical cancer: serial MR imaging before and after primary radiation therapy – a 2-year follow-up study. Radiology. 1992;184:89–93. doi: 10.1148/radiology.184.1.1609108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Hricak H, Swift PS, Campos Z, Quivey JM, Gildengorin V, Goranson H. Irradiation of the cervix uteri: value of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 1993;189:381–8. doi: 10.1148/radiology.189.2.8210364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Yamashita Y, Harada M, Torashima M, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of recurrent postoperative cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;6:167–71. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1880060130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Williams MP, Husband JE, Heron CW, Cherryman GR, Koslin DB. Magnetic resonance imaging in recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Radiol. 1989;62:544–50. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-62-738-544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Kinkel K, Ariche M, Tardivon AA, et al. Differentiation between recurrent tumor and benign conditions after treatment of gynecologic pelvic carcinoma: value of dynamic contrast enhanced subtraction MR imaging. Radiology. 1997;204:55–63. doi: 10.1148/radiology.204.1.9205223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Hawighorst H, Knapstein PG, Schaeffer U, et al. Pelvic lesions in patients with treated cervical carcinoma: efficacy of pharmacokinetic analysis of dynamic MR images in distinguishing recurrent tumors from benign conditions. Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:401–8. doi: 10.2214/ajr.166.2.8553955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.De Graef M, Karam R, Juhan V, Daclin PY, Maubon AJ, Rouanet JP. High signals in the uterine cervix on T2-weighted MRI sequences. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:118–26. doi: 10.1007/s00330-002-1308-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Ebner F, Tamussino K, Kressel HY. Magnetic resonance imaging in cervical carcinoma: diagnosis, staging, and follow-up. Magn Reson Q. 1994;10:22–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]





