Advertisement

Imaging in Uterine Malignancy: Role of Ultrasonography, CT, and PET-CT

  • Thara Pratap

Abstract

Imaging modalities for evaluation of uterine malignancy include ultrasonography, sonohysterography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET-CT). The role of color Doppler with spectral tracing is limited. 3D ultrasonography, contrast ultrasonography, and ultrasound elastography are new techniques which may be useful for better evaluation in certain situations.

Keywords

Positron Emission Tomography Endometrial Cancer Standardize Uptake Value Endometrial Carcinoma Transvaginal Sonography 
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.
    Haaga JR, edited by Dogra VS, Forsting M, Gilkeson R, Ha KH, Sundaram M. CT and MRI of whole body. The updated 5th edition. Philadelphia: Mosby–Elsevier, 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akin O, Mironov S, Pandit-Taskar N, Hann LE. Imaging of uterine cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(1):167–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Viswanathan AN, Buttin BM, Kennedy AM. Ovarian cervical, and endometrial cancer. Radiographics. 2008;28(1):289–307.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ACOG Committee Opinion: The Role of Transvaginal Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Postmenopausal Bleeding. Number 440, Aug 2009 (Reaffirmed 2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sweet MG, Schmidt-Dalton TA, Weiss PM, Madsen KP. Evaluation and management of abnormal uterine bleeding in postmenopausal woman. Am Fam Physician. 2012;85(1):35–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rumack CM, Wilson SR, Charboneau JW, Levine D (eds). Diagnostic ultrasound. 4th ed. Elsevier Mosby, Philadelphia, 2011.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alcazar J, Albela S, Galvan R. Myometrial infiltration of endometrial cancer: uterine virtual navigation with three-dimensional US. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(S1):53 (Impact factor: 3.56).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shi AA, Lee SI. Radiological reasoning: algorithmic workup of abnormal vaginal bleeding with endovaginal sonography and sonohysterography. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:S68–73. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.7067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fung MF, Reid A, Faught W, Le T, Chenier C, Verma S, Brydon E. Fung KF prospective longitudinal study of ultrasound screening for endometrial abnormalities in women with breast cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91(1):154–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dessole S, Rubattu G, Farina M, et al. Risks and usefulness of sonohysterography in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(2):362–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsili AC, Sampoulas CT, Dalkalitsis N, Stefanou D, Paraskevaidis E, Efremidis SC. Local staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of multidetector CT. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(5):1043–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Teo SY, Babagbemi KT, Peters HE, Mortele KJ. Primary malignant mixed müllerian tumor of the uterus: findings on sonography, CT, and gadolinium-enhanced MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;19(1):278–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rha SE, Byun JY, Jung SE, Lee SL, Cho SM, Hwang SS, Lee HG, Namkoong SE, Lee JM. CT and MRI of uterine sarcomas and their mimickers. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:1369–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Szklaruk J, Tamm EP, Choi H, Varavithya V. MR imaging of common and uncommon large pelvic masses. Radiographics. 2003;23:403–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D, Fishman A, Lievshitz G, Even-Sapir ME. Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:266–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kaji Y, Sugimura K. Spectrum of FDG PET/CT findings of uterine tumors. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):737–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Subhas N, Patel PV, Pannu HK, Jacene HA, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Imaging of pelvic malignancies with in-line FDG PET–CT: case examples and common pitfalls of FDG PET. Radiographics. 2005;25:1031–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lalwani N, Dubinsky T, Javitt MC, Gaffney DK, Glanc P, Elshaikh MA, Kim YB, Lee LJ, Pannu HK, Royal HD, Shipp TD, Siegel CL, Simpson L, Wahl AO, Wolfson AH, Zelop CM. Expert panel on women’s imaging and radiation oncology – gynecology ACR appropriateness criteria®. Ultrasound Q. 2011;27(2):139–45. doi: 10.1097/RUQ.0b013e31821b6f73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D. MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(6):1577–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lakeshore Hospital and Research CentreKochiIndia

Personalised recommendations