Advertisement

Imaging in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Endometrial Cancer

  • Mansi A. Saksena
  • Susanna I. LeeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Current Clinical Oncology book series (CCO)

Abstract

Ultrasound, sonohysterography (SHG), magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) are tools available for diagnosis and for post-treatment surveillance. The transvaginal ultrasound has a well-defined role in women presenting with postmenopausal bleeding. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides the most accurate modality for preoperative staging in patients with early disease; CT and PET are helpful in the detection of distant meta­stases; sonohysterography is a less-invasive alternative to hysteroscopy.

Keywords

Endometrial imaging Ultrasound MRI Sonohysterography CT/PET 

References

  1. 1.
    Fleischer AC, Kalemeris GC, Machin JE, Entman SS, James AE, Jr. Sonographic depiction of normal and abnormal endometrium with histopathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 1986;5:445–452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fleischer AC, Mendelson EB, Bohm-Velez M, Entman SS. Transvaginal and transabdominal sonography of the endometrium. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1988;9:81–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson MA, Graham MF, Cooperberg PL. Abnormal endometrial echoes: Sonographic spectrum of endometrial pathology. J Ultrasound Med. 1982;1:161–166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendelson EB, Bohm-Velez M, Neiman HL, Russo J. Transvaginal sonography in gynecologic imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1988;9:102–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guy RL, King E, Ayers AB. The role of transvaginal ultrasound in the assessment of the female pelvis. Clin Radiol. 1988;39:669–672.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coleman BG, Arger PH, Grumbach K, et al Transvaginal and transabdominal sonography: Prospective comparison. Radiology. 1988;168:639–643.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K, Feldstein VA, et al Endovaginal ultrasound to exclude endometrial cancer and other endometrial abnormalities. JAMA. 1998;280:1510–1517.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark TJ, Mann CH, Shah N, Khan KS, Song F, Gupta JK. Accuracy of outpatient endometrial biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer: A systematic quantitative review. BJOG. 2002;109:313–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark TJ, Voit D, Gupta JK, Hyde C, Song F, Khan KS. Accuracy of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and hyperplasia: A systematic quantitative review. JAMA. 2002;288:1610–1621.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubinsky TJ, Stroehlein K, Abu-Ghazzeh Y, Parvey HR, Maklad N. Prediction of benign and malignant endometrial disease: Hysterosonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1999;210:393–397.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sheth S, Hamper UM, Kurman RJ. Thickened endometrium in the postmenopausal woman: Sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1993;187:135–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phillip H, Dacosta V, Fletcher H, Kulkarni S, Reid M. Correlation between transvaginal ultrasound measured endometrial thickness and histopathological findings in afro-caribbean jamaican women with postmenopausal bleeding. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;24:568–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Critchley HO, Warner P, Lee AJ, Brechin S, Guise J, Graham B. Evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding: Comparison of three outpatient procedures within cohorts defined by age and menopausal status. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii–iv, 1–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Affinito P, Palomba S, Pellicano M, et al Ultrasonographic measurement of endometrial thickness during hormonal replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;11:343–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weaver J, McHugo JM, Clark TJ. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound in diagnosing endometrial pathology in women with post-menopausal bleeding on tamoxifen. Br J Radiol. 2005;78:394–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weigel M, Friese K, Strittmatter HJ, Melchert F. Measuring the thickness – is that all we have to do for sonographic assessment of endometrium in postmenopausal women? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;6:97–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gordon AN, Fleischer AC, Reed GW. Depth of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: Preoperative assessment by transvaginal ultrasonography. Gynecol Oncol. 1990;39:321–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Artner A, Bosze P, Gonda G. The value of ultrasound in preoperative assessment of the myometrial and cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;54:147–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Del Maschio A, Vanzulli A, Sironi S, et al Estimating the depth of myometrial involvement by endometrial carcinoma: Efficacy of transvaginal sonography vs MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160:533–538.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yamashita Y, Mizutani H, Torashima M, et al Assessment of myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: Transvaginal sonography vs contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161:595–599.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sawicki W, Spiewankiewicz B, Stelmachow J, Cendrowski K. The value of ultrasonography in preoperative assessment of selected prognostic factors in endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24:293–298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gruessner SE. Intrauterine versus transvaginal sonography for benign and malignant disorders of the female reproductive tract. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:382–387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis PC, O’Neill MJ, Yoder IC, Lee SI, Mueller PR. Sonohysterographic findings of endometrial and subendometrial conditions. Radiographics. 2002;22:803–816.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bree RL, Bowerman RA, Bohm-Velez M, et al US evaluation of the uterus in patients with postmenopausal bleeding: A positive effect on diagnostic decision making. Radiology. 2000;216:260–264.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reinhold C, Khalili I. Postmenopausal bleeding: Value of imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002;40:527–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hata T, Hata K, Senoh D, et al Doppler ultrasound assessment of tumor vascularity in gynecologic disorders. J Ultrasound Med. 1989;8:309–314.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bourne TH, Campbell S, Whitehead MI, Royston P, Steer CV, Collins WP. Detection of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women by transvaginal ultrasonography and colour flow imaging. BMJ. 1990;301:369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Merce LT, Lopez Garcia G, de la Fuente F. Doppler ultrasound assessment of endometrial pathology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1991;70:525–530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sladkevicius P, Valentin L, Marsal K. Endometrial thickness and doppler velocimetry of the uterine arteries as discriminators of endometrial status in women with postmenopausal bleeding: A comparative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:722–728.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sawicki V, Spiewankiewicz B, Stelmachow J, Cendrowski K. Color doppler assessment of blood flow in endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2005;26:279–284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Testa AC, Ciampelli M, Mastromarino C, et al Intratumoral color doppler analysis in endometrial carcinoma: Is it clinically useful? Gynecol Oncol. 2003;88:298–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hricak H, Stern JL, Fisher MR, Shapeero LG, Winkler ML, Lacey CG. Endometrial carcinoma staging by MR imaging. Radiology. 1987;162:297–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, et al Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis. Radiology. 1999;212:711–718.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, et al Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: Clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63:825–832.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Frei KA, Kinkel K, Bonel HM, Lu Y, Zaloudek C, Hricak H. Prediction of deep myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: Clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MR imaging: A meta-analysis and bayesian analysis. Radiology. 2000;216:444–449.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sironi S, Taccagni G, Garancini P, Belloni C, DelMaschio A. Myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: Assessment by MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158:565–569.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ascher SM, Reinhold C. Imaging of cancer of the endometrium. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002;40:563–576.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nasi F, Fiocchi F, Pecchi A, Rivasi F, Torricelli P. MRI evaluation of myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma. Comparison between fast-spin-echo T2W and coronal-FMPSPGR gadolinium-dota-enhanced sequences. Radiol Med (Torino). 2005;110:199–210.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ben-Shachar I, Vitellas KM, Cohn DE. The role of MRI in the conservative management of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93:233–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Ichikawa Y, Saida Y, Itai Y. A thickened or indistinct junctional zone on T2-weighted MR images in patients with endometrial carcinoma: Pathologic consideration based on microcirculation. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:2038–2045.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, et al Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: Role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology. 2004;231:372–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Oosterhof GO, Witjes JA, Ruijs SJ. 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. 1996;167: 1503–1507.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Connor JP, Andrews JI, Anderson B, Buller RE. Computed tomography in endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:692–696.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pilka R, Kudela M, Dzvincuk P, Lubusky D. Preoperative detection of lymph nodes by means of computer tomography in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Ceska Gynekol. 2004;69:237–239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Horowitz NS, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ, et al Prospective evaluation of FDG-PET for detecting pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastasis in uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:546–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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;23:2813–2821.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Anzai Y, Piccoli CW, Outwater EK, et al Evaluation of neck and body metastases to nodes with ferumoxtran 10-enhanced MR imaging: Phase III safety and efficacy study. Radiology. 2003;228:777–788.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Weissleder R, Elizondo G, Wittenberg J, Lee AS, Josephson L, Brady TJ. Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide: An intravenous contrast agent for assessing lymph nodes with MR imaging. Radiology. 1990;175:494–498.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Russell AH, Anderson M, Walter J, Kinney W, Smith L, Scudder S. The integration of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in treatment planning for gynecologic cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1992;35:55–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pete I, Godeny M, Toth E, Rado J, Pete B, Pulay T. Prediction of cervical infiltration in stage II endometrial cancer by different preoperative evaluation techniques (D&C, US, CT, MRI). Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24:517–522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kim SH, Kim HD, Song YS, Kang SB, Lee HP. Detection of deep myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma: Comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, CT, and MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1995;19:766–772.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zerbe MJ, Bristow R, Grumbine FC, Montz FJ. Inability of preoperative computed tomography scans to accurately predict the extent of myometrial invasion and extracorporal spread in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:67–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hardesty LA, Sumkin JH, Hakim C, Johns C, Nath M. The ability of helical CT to preoperatively stage endometrial carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:603–606.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chao A, Chang TC, Ng KK, et al (18)F-FDG PET in the management of endometrial cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:36–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Savelli L, Testa AC, Ferrandina G, et al Pelvic relapses of uterine neoplasms: Transvaginal sonographic and doppler features. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93:441–445.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Saga T, Higashi T, Ishimori T, et al Clinical value of FDG-PET in the follow up of post-operative patients with endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2003;17:197–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Belhocine T, De Barsy C, Hustinx R, Willems-Foidart J. Usefulness of (18)F-FDG PET in the post-therapy surveillance of endometrial carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1132–1139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General HospitalBoston

Personalised recommendations