CT-MR Findings in Ovarian Cancer

  • Dimitra G. Loggitsi


Ovarian cancer is the most lethal of the gynecologic cancers as the majority of patients will have advanced disease at time of presentation. The most important determinant of survival for ovarian cancer patients is the disease stage at diagnosis and maximum residual disease after cytoreductive surgery. Cross-sectional imaging has an invaluable role in the preoperative surgical and management planning of these patients. A TNM (tumor, nodes, metastasis) classification has been defined, with the definitions of the T stage categories corresponding to several stages accepted by FIGO. CT is the imaging modality of choice for noninvasive staging and follow-up in ovarian cancer because it is quick, widely available, and reproducible. MRI is a problem-solving tool in the characterization of the origin and morphologic features of indeterminate ovarian masses and is particularly useful for local staging. DWI seems a new promising technique for the depiction of peritoneal metastases, when combined with conventional imaging.


Ovaries Cancer Staging CT MRI 


  1. 1.
    Thomassin-Naggara I, Bazot M, Daraï E, Callard P, Thomassin J, Cuenod CA (2008) Epithelial ovarian tumors: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 248:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moyle P, Addley HC, Sala E (2010) Radiological staging of ovarian carcinoma. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 31:388–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forstner R (2007) Radiological staging of ovarian cancer: imaging findings and contribution of CT and MRI. Eur Radiol 17:3223–3246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG et al (2000) Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities—report from the radiology oncology group. Radiology 215:761–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kyriazi S, Kaye SB, DeSouza NM (2010) Imaging ovarian cancer and peritoneal metastases—current and emerging techniques. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7(7):381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yuana Y, Gub ZX, Taoa XF, Liua SY (2012) Computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 81:1002–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Low RN, Gurney J (2007) Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in the oncology patient: value of breathhold DWI compared to unenhanced and gadolinium-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 25(4):848–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bharwani N, Reznek RH, Rockall AG (2011) Ovarian cancer management: the role of imaging and diagnostic challenges. Eur J Radiol 78(2011):41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forstner R, Sala E, Kinkel K, Spencer JA (2010) ESUR guidelines: ovarian cancer staging and follow-up. Eur Radiol 20:2773–2780CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitra G. Loggitsi
    • 1
  1. 1.CT/MRI DepartmentMitera HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations