Abstract
Cervical cancer (CC) is diagnosis based on histopathological analysis. Although cancer staging is performed clinically, using the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) criteria, cancer staging systems have been shown to be deficient for the examination of prognostic factors of CC, including tumor size and infiltration of the parametria or pelvic wall, as well as for the evaluation of nodal metastases. In this regard, imaging methods are considered crucial in the assessment of CC, as imaging data complement the information obtained from a clinical examination.
Ultrasound has a limited role in CC staging; it is inadequate for assessing nodal status or pelvic wall involvement. Tomography is used to evaluate adenopathies, define the extent of disease progression, assess metastasis, plan radiotherapy, and guide percutaneous biopsy. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been established to be superior for the characterization of lesions and local extension of disease. The main indications for 18F-FDG positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) are initial staging (determination of locoregional nodal involvement and extrapelvic extension), evaluation of the response to therapy and detection of recurrence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Odicino F, Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, et al. History of the FIGO cancer staging system. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;101(2):205–10.
Okamoto Y, Tanaka YO, Nishida M, et al. MR imaging of the uterine cervix: imaging-pathologic correlation. RadioGraphics. 2003;23(2):425–45.
Rauch GM, Kaur H, Choi H, Ernst RD, et al. Optimization of MR imaging for pretreatment evaluation of patients with endometrial and cervical cancer. RadioGraphics. 2014;34:1082–98.
Freeman S, Kataoka M, Addley H, et al. The revised FIGO staging system for uterine malignancies: implications for MR imaging. RadioGraphics. 2012;32:1805–27.
Fischerova D, Cibula D, Stenhova H, et al. Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of early cervical cáncer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:766–72.
Testa AC, Ludovisi M, Manfredi R, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for assesment of presence, size and extent of invasive cervical cáncer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:335–44.
Alcázar JL, Arribas S, Mínguez JA, Jurado M, et al. The role of ultrasound in the assesment of uterine cervical cáncer. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014;64(5):311–6.
Fischerova D. Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecologic tumors: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(3):246–66.
Testa A, Di Legge A, et al. Imaging techniches for the evaluation of cervical cáncer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28:741–68.
Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK. CT evaluation of cervical cáncer: spectrum of disease. Radiographics. 2001;21(5):1155–68.
Yitta S, Hecht EM, Mausner EV, Bennett GL. Normal or abnormal? Demystifying uterine and cervical contrast enhancement at multidetector CT. RadioGraphics. 2011;31(3):647–61.
Hildebrandt G, Kodhal R, et al. (18F) fluordeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography in breast cancer and gynecologic cancers, a literature review. PET Clin. 2015;10:89–104.
Grant P, Sakellis C. Gynecologic imaging with PET/CT. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44(6):461–78.
Son H, Kositwattanarerk A, Hayes MP, et al. PET/CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. RadioGraphics. 2010;30(5):1251–68.
Tachibana I, Nishimura Y, Shibata T, et al. A prospective clinical trial of tumor hypoxia imaging with 18F-fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography and computed tomography (F-MISO PET/CT) before and during radiation therapy. J Radiat Res. 2013;54(6):1078–84.
Toma-Dasu I, Uhrdin J, Antonovic L, et al. Dose prescription and treatment planning based on FMISO-PET hypoxia. Acta Oncol. 2012;51(2):222–30.
Sree H, Alampady S, Srinivasa P. Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of endometrial and cervical carcinomas. Radiol Clin N Am. 2013;51:1087–110.
Shaaban. Blodgett. Diagnóstico por Imagen Oncología. Marbán. 2012;Sección 6:726–51.
Balleyguier C et al. Staging of uterine cervical cáncer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1102–10.
Harpreet K, Frank M, Elliot K. CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. RadioGraphics. 2001;21:1155–68.
Welliver M-X, Yuh William TC, et al. Imaging across life span: innovations in imaging and therapy for gynecologic cáncer. Radiographics. 2014;34(4):1062–81.
Sunita D, Meenkski T, et al. Diffusion weighted imaging in gynecologic tumors: diagnostic imaging and potential pitfalls. Radiographics. 2014;34(5):1393–416.
Sasan P, Andres K, et al. clinical oncologic aplications of PET/MRI: a new horizon. Am J Med Mol Imaging. 2014;4(2):202–12.
Bashir U, Mallia A, et al. PET/MRI in oncologic imaging: state of the art. Diagnostics. 2015; doi:10.3390/diagnostics5030333.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Villaseñor-Navarro, Y. et al. (2017). Imaging in Cervical Cancer. In: de la Garza-Salazar, J., Morales-Vásquez, F., Meneses-Garcia, A. (eds) Cervical Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45231-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45231-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45230-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45231-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)