CT-MR Findings in Cervical and Endometrial Cancer

  • Charis I. Bourgioti


Currently, there is a significant increase in the use of computed tomography (CT) and particularly of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis, staging, treatment response, and detection of potential recurrence in patients with gynecological cancer. The aim of this chapter is to review the diagnostic efficacy of these imaging modalities in the evaluation of endometrial and uterine cervical cancer.


  1. 1.
    Creasman W (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105(2):109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amant F, Moerman P, Timmerman D et al (2005) Endometrial cancer. Lancet 366(9484):491–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patel S, Liyanage S, Sahdev A et al (2010) Imaging of endometrial and cervical cancer. Insights Imaging 1:309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee HJ, Dubinsky T, Andreotti R et al (2011) ACR appropriateness criteria pretreatment evaluation and follow-up of endometrial cancer of the uterus. Ultrasound Q 27:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fielding J, Brown D, Thurmond A (2011) Gynecologic imaging: expert radiology series. Elsevier Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsili AC, Tsampoulas C, Dalkalitsis N et al (2008) Local staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of multidetector CT. Eur Radiol 18(5):1043–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kinkel K, Forstner R, Danza FM et al (2009) Staging of endometrial cancer with MRI: guidelines of European society of urogenital imaging. Eur Radiol 19:1565–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frei KA, Kinkel K (2001) Staging endometrial cancer: role of magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 13(6):850–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bourgioti C, Chatoupis K, Tzavara C (2016) Predictive ability of maximal tumor diameter on MRI for high-risk endometrial cancer. Abdominal. Radiology 41(12):2484–2495Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beddy P, Moyle P, Kataoka M et al (2012) Evaluation of depth of myometrial invasion and overall staging in endometrial cancer: comparison of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 262(2):530–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105(2):107–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Plante M, Roy M (2006) Fertility preserving options in cervical cancer. Oncology 20:479PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ozsarlak O, Tjalma W, Schepens E et al (2003) The correlation of preoperative CT, MR imaging and clinical staging (FIGO) with histopathology findings in primary cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol 13:2338–2345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Coakley F et al (2007) Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation-ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Radiology 245:491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E et al (2007) MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. AJR 188:1577–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bourgioti C, Chatoupis K, Moulopoulos LA (2016) Current imaging strategies for the evaluation of uterine cervical cancer. World J Radiol 8(4):342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F et al (2006) Early invasive cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 24(36):5687–5694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bourgioti C, Koutoulidis V, Chatoupis K et al (2014) MRI findings before and after abdominal radical trachelectomy (ART) for cervical cancer: a prospective study and review of the literature. Clin Radiol 69(7):678–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bourgioti C, Chatoupis K, Rodolakis A et al (2016) Incremental prognostic value of MRI in the staging of early cervical cancer: a prospective study and review of the literature. Clin Imaging 40(1):72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hori M, Kim T, Murakami T et al (2009) Uterine cervical carcinoma: preoperative staging with 3.0-T MR imaging- comparison with 1.5-T MR imaging. Radiology 251:96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Charles-Edwards EM, Messiou C, Morgan VA et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted imaging in cervical cancer with an endovaginal technique: potential value for improving tumour detection in stage Ia and Ib1 disease. Radiology 249:541–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin YC, Lin G, Chen YR et al (2011) Role of magnetic resonance imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient at 3T in distinguishing between adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix and endometrium. Chang Gung Med J 34:93–100Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zand KR, Reinhold C, Abe H et al (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervix. Cancer Imaging 7:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charis I. Bourgioti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologySchool of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Aretaieion HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations