Abstract
Cervical cancer imaging is very important for correct treatment planning and prognosis determination. In the latest version of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics-2018; staging, cross-sectional imaging and pathological findings were included in the system. Magnetic resonance imaging in determining tumor size and parametrial involvement, and cross-sectional imaging, especially 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in determining lymph node involvement and distant metastases have an increased role.
Keywords: Uterine cervical neoplasms, magnetic resonance imaging, PET/CT, diagnostic imaging
References
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68: 394-424. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70: 313.
De Gregorio A, Widschwendter P, Ebner F, Friedl TWP, Huober J, Janni W, et al. Influence of the new FIGO classification for cervical cancer on patient survival: a retrospective analysis of 265 histologically confirmed cases with FIGO Stages IA to IIB.Oncology. 2020; 98: 91-7.
Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS, Konishi I, Mikami M. Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system.Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 152: 87-93.
Wright JD, Matsuo K, Huang Y, Tergas AI, Hou JY, Khoury-Collado F, et al. Prognostic Performance of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Cervical Cancer Staging Guidelines.Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 134: 49-57.
Woo S, Atun R, Ward ZJ, Scott AM, Hricak H, Vargas HA. Diagnostic performance of conventional and advanced imaging modalities for assessing newly diagnosed cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur Radiol. 2020; 30: 5560-77.
Manganaro L, Lakhman Y, Bharwani N, Gui B, Gigli S, Vinci V, et al. Staging, recurrence and follow-up of uterine cervical cancer using MRI: updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology after revised FIGO staging 2018.Eur Radiol. 2021; 31: 7802-16. Erratum in: Eur Radiol. 2022; 32: 738.
Ruan J, Zhang Y, Ren H. Meta-analysis of PET/CT detect lymph nodes metastases of cervical cancer.Open Med (Wars). 2018; 13: 436-42.
Lee SI, Atri M. 2018 FIGO staging system for uterine cervical cancer: enter cross-sectional imaging.Radiology. 2019; 292: 15-24.
Salib MY, Russell JHB, Stewart VR, Sudderuddin SA, Barwick TD, Rockall AG, et al. 2018 FIGO staging classification for cervical cancer: added benefits of imaging.Radiographics. 2020; 40: 1807-22.
Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri.Int J Gynaecol Obstet2019; 145: 129-35. Erratum in:Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019; 147: 279-80.
Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 143: 22-36. Erratum in: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024; 164: 1229-30.
Santoro A, Inzani F, Angelico G, Arciuolo D, Bragantini E, Travaglino A, et al. Recent advances in cervical cancer management: a review on novel prognostic factors in primary and recurrent tumors.Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15: 1137.
Horn LC, Bilek K, Fischer U, Einenkel J, Hentschel B. A cut-off value of 2 cm in tumor size is of prognostic value in surgically treated FIGO stage IB cervical cancer.Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 134: 42-6.
Sala E, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, Mitchell DG, Reinhold C. The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patients with gynecologic malignancies: what the radiologist needs to know.Radiology. 2013; 266: 717-40.
Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK. CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease.Radiographics. 2001; 21: 1155-68.
McComas KN,Torgeson AM, Ager BJ, Hellekson C, Burt LM, Kathryn A, et al. The variable impact of positive lymph nodes in cervical cancer: Implications of the new FIGO staging system. Gynecol Oncol. 2020; 156: 85-92.
Qin F, Pang H, Yu T, Luo Y, Dong Y. Treatment strategies and prognostic factors of 2018 FIGO stage IIIC cervical cancer: a review.Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2022; 21: 15330338221086403.
Cui H, Huang Y, Wen W, Li X, Xu D, Liu L. Prognostic value of lymph node ratio in cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2022; 101: e30745.
Gulseren V, Kocaer M, Gungorduk O, Ozdemir IA, Gokcu M, Mart EM, et al.Preoperative predictors of pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastases in cervical cancer. J Cancer Res Ther.2019; 15: 1231-4.
Nanthamongolkul K, Hanprasertpong J. Predictive factors of pelvic lymph node metastasis in early-stage cervical cancer.Oncol Res Treat. 2018; 41: 194-8.
Yu F, Chen Y, Huang L, Nie G. Risk factors of node metastasis in cervical carcinoma.Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2016; 37: 662-5.
Rockall AG, Sohaib SA, Harisinghani MG, Babar SA, Singh N, Jeyarajah AR, et al. Diagnostic performance of nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in pa tients with endometrial and cervical cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 2813-21.
Lai G, Rockall AG. Lymph node imaging in gynecologic malignancy.Semin UltrasoundCT MR. 2010; 31: 363-76.
Yang WT, Lam WW, Yu MY, Cheung TH, Metreweli C. Comparison of dynamic helical CT and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in cervical carcinoma.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 175: 759-66.
Saleh M, Virarkar M, Javadi S, Elsherif SB, de Castro Faria S, Bhosale P. Cervical Cancer: 2018 Revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging System and the Role of Imaging.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 214: 1182-95.
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.
Prabhakar HB, Kraeft JJ, Schorge JO, Scott JA, Lee SI. FDG PET-CT of gynecologic cancers: pearls and pitfalls.Abdom Imaging. 2015; 40: 2472-85.
Gee MS, Atri M, Bandos AI, Mannel RS, Gold MA, Lee SI. Identification of distant metastatic disease in uterine cervical and endometrial cancers with FDG PET/CT: analysis from the ACRIN 6671/GOG 0233 multicenter trial.Radiology. 2018; 287: 176-84.
Siegel CL, Andreotti RF, Cardenes HR, Brown DL, Gaffney DK, Horowitz NS, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® pretreatment planning of invasive cancer of the cervix. J Am Coll Radiol. 2012; 9: 395-402.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network,Guidelines Cervical Cancer. Accessed: May 18, 2024.
