Advertisement

Cervical Pathology

  • Patricia Carrascosa
  • Carlos Capuñay
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
Chapter

Abstract

The cervical abnormalities, that can be evaluated using virtual hysterosalpingography (VHSG), include diverse types of pathologies such as changes in the cervical diameter, dilatation or stenosis, sinechiae and parietal irregularities with thick folds, polipoyd lesions, diverticules and cesarean scars. All of them constitute benign pathologies. The malignant pathology, as the cervical cancer is, can be detected by VHSG only in advanced stages, and its role is limited.

Keywords

Cervical Cancer Human Papilloma Virus Embryo Transfer Multiplanar Reconstruction Cervical Canal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Carrascosa P, Baronio M, Capuňay C, et al. Multidetector computed tomography virtual hysterosalpingography in the investigation of the uterus and fallopian tubes. Clinical Imaging. 2009;33:165.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Mariano B, et al. Virtual hysteroscopy by multidetector computed tomography. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33(4):381–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Baronio M, et al. 64- Row multidetector CT virtual hysterosalpingography. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34:121–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual Hysterosalpingography: a new multidetector CT technique for evaluating the female reproductive system. Radiographics. 2010;30:643–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: experience with over 1000 consecutive patients. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ott DJ, Fayez JA. Tubal and adnexal abnormalities. In: Ott DJ, Fayez JA, Zagoria RJ, editors. Hysterosalpingography: a text and atlas. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1998. p. 90–3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simpson Jr WL, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. Radiographics. 2006;26(2):419–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vardhana PA, Silberzweig JE, Guarnaccia M, et al. Hysterosalpingography with selective salpingography. J Reprod Med. 2009;54(3):126–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Baronio M, et al. 64- Row multidetector CT virtual hysterosalpingography. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34:133–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carrascosa P, Baronio M, Capuñay C, et al. Multidetector computed tomography virtual hysterosalpingography in the investigation of the uterus and fallopian tubes. Eur J Radiol. 2008;67:531–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sebastian S, Kalra MK, Mittal P, et al. Can independent coronal multiplanar reformatted images obtained using state-of-the-art MDCT scanners be used for primary interpretation of MDCT of the abdomen and pelvis? A feasibility study. Eur J Radiol. 2007;64(3):439–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kirchgeorg MA, Prokop M. Increasing spiral CT benefits with postprocessing applications. Eur J Radiol. 1998;28(1):39–54. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baronio M, Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, et al. Diagnostic performance of CT virtual hysteroscopy in 69 consecutive patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(Suppl):S77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Capuñay C, Baronio M, Carrascosa P, et al. CT virtual hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of uterine myomas. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(Suppl):S211.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carrascosa P, Baronio JM, Borghi M, et al. Histerosalpingoscopía virtual. Una técnica novedosa y no invasiva para diagnosticar patología intrauterina. Reproduccion. 2006;21:19–26.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chalazonitis A, Tzovara I, Laspas F, et al. Hysterosalpingography: technique and applications. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2009;38(5):199–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee A, Ying YK, Novy MJ. Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingography and tubal ostial polyps in infertility patients. J Reprod Med. 1997;42(6):337–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Radić V, Canić T, Valetić J, et al. Advantages and disadvantages of hysterosonosalpingography in the assessment of the reproductive status of uterine cavity and fallopian tubes. Eur J Radiol. 2005;53(2):268–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roma Dalfó A, Ubeda B, Ubeda A, et al. Diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography in the detection of intrauterine abnormalities: a comparison with hysteroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(5):1405–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    López Navarrete JA, Herrera Otero JM, Quiroga Feuchter G, et al. Comparison between hysterosonography and hysterosalpinography in the study of endometrial abnormalities in infertility patients. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2003;71:277–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gustafsson L, Ponten J, Bergstrom R, et al. International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer before cytological screening. Int J Cancer. 1997;71:159–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Womack C, Warren AY. The cervical screening muddle. Lancet. 1998;351:1129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Plaxe SC, Saltzstein SL. Estimation of the duration of the preclinical phase of cervical adenocarcinoma suggests that there is ample opportunity for screening. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;75:55–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brenner H. Long-term survival rates of cancer patients achieved by the end of the 20th century: a period analysis. Lancet. 2002;360:1131–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Castle PE, Wacholder S, Lorincz AT, et al. A prospective study of high-grade cervical neoplasia risk among human papillomavirus-infected women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1406–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lorincz AT, Castle PE, Sherman ME, et al. Viral load of human papillomavirus and risk of CIN3 or cervical cancer. Lancet. 2002;360:228–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189:12–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yamada T, Manos MM, Peto J, et al. Human papillomavirus type 16 sequence variation in cervical cancers: a worldwide perspective. J Virol. 1997;71:2463–72.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bosch FX, Manos MM, Munoz N, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. International biological study on cervical cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:796–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Munoz N, Franceschi S, Bosetti C, et al. Role of parity and human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: the IARC multicentric case–control study. Lancet. 2002;359:1093–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith JS, Herrero R, Bosetti C, et al. Herpes simplex virus-2 as a human papillomavirus cofactor in the etiology of invasive cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1604–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith JS, Munoz N, Herrero R, et al. Evidence for Chlamydia trachomatis as a human papillomavirus cofactor in the etiology of invasive cervical cancer in Brazil and the Philippines. J Infect Dis. 2002;185:324–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Richart RM. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Pathol Annu. 1973;8:301–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vizcaino AP, Moreno V, Bosch FX, et al. International trends in incidence of cervical cancer: II. Squamous-cell carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2000;86:429–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Davidson SE, Symonds RP, Lamont D, et al. Does adenocarcinoma of uterine cervix have a worse prognosis than squamous carcinoma when treated by radiotherapy? Gynecol Oncol. 1989;33:23–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaminski PF, Norris HJ. Minimal deviation carcinoma (adenoma malignum) of the cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1983;2:141–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fu YS, Reagan JW, Fu AS, et al. Adenocarcinoma and mixed carcinoma of the uterine cervix. II. Prognostic value of nuclear DNA analysis. Cancer. 1982;49:2571–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chen KT. Female genital tract tumors in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Hum Pathol. 1986;17:858–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cervix uteri cancer staging. 7th ed. Disponible en: http://www.cancerstaging.org/staging/posters/cervix24x30.pdf. Accedido 17 enero 2012.
  41. 41.
    Ho CM, Chien TY, Jeng CM, et al. Staging of cervical cancer: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and pelvic examination under anesthesia. J Formos Med Assoc. 1992;91:982–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, et al. Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1997;278:1096–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. FDG-PET evaluation of carcinoma of the cervix. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:105–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brenner DE, Whitley NO, Prempree T, et al. An evaluation of the computed tomographic scanner for the staging of carcinoma of the cervix. Cancer. 1982;50:2323–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Villasanta U, Whitley NO, Haney PJ, et al. Computed tomography in invasive carcinoma of the cervix: an appraisal. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;62:218–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology. 1988;166:623–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kim SH, Han MC. Invasion of the urinary bladder by uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:393–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kim SH, Choi BI, Han JK, et al. Preoperative staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MRI in 99 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1993;17:633–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brodman M, Friedman Jr F, Dottino P, et al. A comparative study of computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and clinical staging for the detection of early cervix cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1990;36:409–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Togashi K, Nishimura K, Sagoh T, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: staging with MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;171:245–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Preidler KW, Tamussino K, Szolar DM, et al. Staging of cervical carcinomas. Comparison of body-coil magnetic resonance imaging and endorectal surface coil magnetic resonance imaging with histopathologic correlation. Invest Radiol. 1996;31:458–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ebner F, Tamussino K, Kressel HY. Magnetic resonance imaging in cervical carcinoma: diagnosis, staging, and follow-up. Magn Reson Q. 1994;10:22–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yamashita Y, Harada M, Torashima M, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of recurrent postoperative cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;6:167–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brown JJ, Gutierrez ED, Lee JK. MR appearance of the normal and abnormal vagina after hysterectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158:95–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hricak H, Powell CB, Yu KK, et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: role of MR imaging in pretreatment workup-cost minimization and diagnostic efficacy analysis. Radiology. 1996;198:403–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Heron CW, Husband JE, Williams MP, et al. The value of CT in the diagnosis of recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Clin Radiol. 1988;39:496–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schoolcraft WB, Surrey ES, Gardner DK. Embryo transfer: techniques and variables affecting success. Fertility and Sterility. 2001;76:863–70.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA. Optimizing the embryo transfer technique. Hum. Reprod. 2002;17:1149–53.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Oliveira FG, Abdelmassih VG, Diamond MP, et al. Uterine cavity findings and hysteroscopic interventions in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer who repeatedly cannot conceive. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1371–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Carrascosa
    • 1
  • Carlos Capuñay
    • 1
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
    • 2
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
    • 3
  1. 1.Diagnóstico MaipúBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.CEGYRBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations