Advertisement

Imaging in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Endometrial Cancer

  • Jessica J. KraeftEmail author
  • Susanna I. Lee
Part of the Current Clinical Oncology book series (CCO)

Abstract

Ultrasound, sonohysterography (SHG), magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography (CT), and 18-2-fluorodeoxy-2-deoxy-D-glucose fusion positron emission tomography CT (FDG-PET CT) are tools available for diagnosis, treatment planning, and detection of recurrences post-primary therapy of EC. Transvaginal ultrasound has an established role in screening for cancer in women presenting with postmenopausal bleeding. Sonohysterography allows for diagnosis of focal endocavitary lesions and hysteroscopy planning. For treatment planning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides the best definition of tumor extent in the central soft tissue pelvis whereas FDG-PET CT is the most accurate modality for detecting lymphadenopathy and distant metastases. Post-primary therapy, CT and FDG-PET CT are both useful in evaluating recurrences with the latter being more sensitive.

Keywords

Female pelvic imaging Gynecologic cancer imaging Lymph node imaging Cancer staging Pelvic ultrasound 

References

  1. 1.
    Fleischer AC, Kalemeris GC, Machin JE, Entman SS, James AE Jr (1986) Sonographic depiction of normal and abnormal endometrium with histopathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med 5:445–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fleischer AC, Mendelson EB, Bohm-Velez M, Entman SS (1988) Transvaginal and transabdominal sonography of the endometrium. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 9:81–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson MA, Graham MF, Cooperberg PL (1982) Abnormal endometrial echoes: sonographic spectrum of endometrial pathology. J Ultrasound Med 1:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendelson EB, Bohm-Velez M, Neiman HL, Russo J (1988) Transvaginal sonography in gynecologic imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 9:102–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guy RL, King E, Ayers AB (1988) The role of transvaginal ultrasound in the assessment of the female pelvis. Clin Radiol 39:669–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coleman BG, Arger PH, Grumbach K et al (1988) Transvaginal and transabdominal sonography: prospective comparison. Radiology 168:639–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K, Feldstein VA et al (1998) Endovaginal ultrasound to exclude endometrial cancer and other endometrial abnormalities. JAMA 280:1510–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark TJ, Mann CH, Shah N, Khan KS, Song F, Gupta JK (2002) Accuracy of outpatient endometrial biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer: a systematic quantitative review. BJOG 109:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark TJ, Voit D, Gupta JK, Hyde C, Song F, Khan KS (2002) Accuracy of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and hyperplasia: a systematic quantitative review. JAMA 288:1610–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubinsky TJ, Stroehlein K, Abu-Ghazzeh Y, Parvey HR, Maklad N (1999) Prediction of benign and malignant endometrial disease: hysterosonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 210:393–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sheth S, Hamper UM, Kurman RJ (1993) Thickened endometrium in the postmenopausal woman: sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 187:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phillip H, Dacosta V, Fletcher H, Kulkarni S, Reid M (2004) Correlation between transvaginal ultrasound measured endometrial thickness and histopathological findings in Afro-Caribbean Jamaican women with postmenopausal bleeding. J Obstet Gynaecol 24:568–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Critchley HO, Warner P, Lee AJ, Brechin S, Guise J, Graham B (2004) Evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding: comparison of three outpatient procedures within cohorts defined by age and menopausal status. Health Technol Assess 8:iii–ivCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Affinito P, Palomba S, Pellicano M et al (1998) Ultrasonographic measurement of endometrial thickness during hormonal replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 11:343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weaver J, McHugo JM, Clark TJ (2005) Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound in diagnosing endometrial pathology in women with post-menopausal bleeding on tamoxifen. Br J Radiol 78:394–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weigel M, Friese K, Strittmatter HJ, Melchert F (1995) Measuring the thickness is that all we have to do for sonographic assessment of endometrium in postmenopausal women? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 6:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pecorelli S (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105:103–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon AN, Fleischer AC, Reed GW (1990) Depth of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: preoperative assessment by transvaginal ultrasonography. Gynecol Oncol 39:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Artner A, Bosze P, Gonda G (1994) The value of ultrasound in preoperative assessment of the myometrial and cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 54:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    DelMaschio A, Vanzulli A, Sironi S et al (1993) Estimating the depth of myometrial involvement by endometrial carcinoma: efficacy of transvaginal sonography vs MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 160:533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yamashita Y, Mizutani H, Torashima M et al (1993) Assessment of myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: transvaginal sonography vs contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 161:595–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sawicki W, Spiewankiewicz B, Stelmachow J, Cendrowski K (2003) The value of ultrasonography in preoperative assessment of selected prognostic factors in endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 24:293–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gruessner SE (2004) Intrauterine versus transvaginal sonography for benign and malignant disorders of the female reproductive tract. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23:382–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis PC, O'Neill MJ, Yoder IC, Lee SI, Mueller PR (2002) Sonohysterographic findings of endometrial and subendometrial conditions. Radiographics 22:803–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bree RL, Bowerman RA, Bohm-Velez M et al (2000) US evaluation of the uterus in patients with postmenopausal bleeding: a positive effect on diagnostic decision making. Radiology 216:260–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reinhold C, Khalili I (2002) Postmenopausal bleeding: value of imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 40:527–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, Segal MR, Lu Y, Powell CB, Hricak H (1999) Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology 212:711–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lin G, Ng KK, Chang CJ et al (2009) Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted 3.0-T MR imaging–initial experience. Radiology 250:784–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lin G, Ho KC, Wang JJ et al (2008) Detection of lymph node metastasis in cervical and uterine cancers by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hricak H, Stern JL, Fisher MR, Shapeero LG, Winkler ML, Lacey CG (1987) Endometrial carcinoma staging by MR imaging. Radiology 162:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA et al (2008) Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol 109:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Duncan KA, Drinkwater KJ, Frost C, Remedios D, Barter S (2012) Staging cancer of the uterus: a national audit of MRI accuracy. Clin Radiol 67:523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sironi S, Taccagni G, Garancini P, Belloni C, DelMaschio A (1992) Myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: assessment by MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 158:565–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ascher SM, Reinhold C (2002) Imaging of cancer of the endometrium. Radiol Clin North Am 40:563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nasi F, Fiocchi F, Pecchi A, Rivasi F, Torricelli P (2005) MRI evaluation of myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma. comparison between fast-spin-echo T2W and coronal-FMPSPGR gadolinium-dota-enhanced sequences. Radiol Med (Torino) 110:199–210Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ben-Shachar I, Vitellas KM, Cohn DE (2004) The role of MRI in the conservative management of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 93:233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Ichikawa Y, Saida Y, Itai Y (2003) A thickened or indistinct junctional zone on T2-weighted MR images in patients with endometrial carcinoma: pathologic consideration based on microcirculation. Eur Radiol 13:2038–2045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G et al (2004) Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology 231:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Oosterhof GO, Witjes JA, Ruijs SJ (1996) Pelvic adenopathy in prostatic and urinary bladder carcinoma: MR imaging with a three-dimensional TI-weighted magnetization-prepared-rapid gradient-echo sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:1503–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Antonsen SL, Jensen LN, Loft A et al (2013) MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer—a multicenter prospective comparative study. Gynecol Oncol 128:300–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Selman TJ, Christopher H, Mann CH, Zamora J, Khan KS (2008) A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer. BMC Women’s Health 8:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nakai G, Matsuki M, Inada Y et al (2008) Detection and evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with gynecologic malignancies using body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32:764–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Russell AH, Anderson M, Walter J, Kinney W, Smith L, Scudder S (1992) The integration of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in treatment planning for gynecologic cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 35:55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pete I, Godeny M, Toth E, Rado J, Pete B, Pulay T (2003) Prediction of cervical infiltration in stage II endometrial cancer by different preoperative evaluation techniques (D&C, US, CT, MRI). Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 24:517–522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kim SH, Kim HD, Song YS, Kang SB, Lee HP (1995) Detection of deep myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma: comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, CT, and MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 19:766–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zerbe MJ, Bristow R, Grumbine FC, Montz FJ (2000) Inability of preoperative computed tomography scans to accurately predict the extent of myometrial invasion and extracorporeal spread in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 78:67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hardesty LA, Sumkin JH, Hakim C, Johns C, Nath M (2001) The ability of helical CT to preoperatively stage endometrial carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:603–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Prabhakar HB, Kraeft JJ, Schorge JO, et al. (2015) FDG PET-CT of gynecologic cancers: pearls and pitfalls. Abdominal Imaging [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gorospe L, Jover-Diaz R, Vicente-Bartulos A (2012) Spectrum of PET-CT pelvic pitfalls in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Abdom Imaging 37(6):1041–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nakamura K, Kodama J, Okumura Y, Hongo A, Kanazawa S, Hiramatsu Y (2010) The SUVmax of 18F-FDG PET correlates with histological grade in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20:110–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Liu Y (2009) Benign ovarian and endometrial uptake on FDG PET-CT: patterns and pitfalls. Ann Nucl Med 23:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lee SI, Catalano OA, Dehdashti F (2015) Gynecologic cancer imaging with MRI,FDG PET-CT and PET-MR. J Nucl Med [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Signorelli M, Guerra L, Buda A et al (2009) Role of the integrated FDG PET/CT in the surgical management of patients with high risk clinical early stage endometrial cancer: detection of pelvic nodal metastases. Gynecol Oncol 115:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Picchio M, Mangili G, Samanes Gajate AM et al (2010) High-grade endometrial cancer: value of (18)F)FDG PET/CT in preoperative staging. Nuc Med Commun 31:506–512Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Berchuck A, Anspach C, Evans AC et al (1995) Postsurgical surveillance of patients with FIGO stage I/II endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 59(1):20–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al (2008) Performance of FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med 22:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sironi S, Picchio M, Landoni C et al (2007) Post-therapy surveillance of patients with uterine cancer: value of integrated FDG PET/CT in the detection of recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyTufts Medical CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiology Massachusetts General HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations