Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

PET/CT and MRI in the imaging assessment of cervical cancer

  • Pictorial Essay
  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Imaging plays a central role in the evaluation of patients with cervical cancer and helps guide treatment decisions. The purpose of this pictorial review is to describe magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) assessment of cervical cancer, including indications for imaging, important findings that may result in management change, as well as limitations of both modalities. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics cervical cancer staging system does not officially include imaging; however, the organization endorses the use of MR imaging and PET/CT in the management of patients with cervical cancer where these modalities are available. MR imaging provides the best visualization of the primary tumor and extent of soft tissue disease. PET/CT is recommended for assessment of nodal involvement, as well as distant metastases. Both MR imaging and PET/CT are used to follow patients post-treatment to assess for recurrence. This review focuses on the current MR imaging and PET/CT protocols, the utility of these modalities in assessing primary tumors and recurrences, with emphasis on imaging findings which change management and on imaging pitfalls to avoid. It is important to be familiar with the MR imaging and PET/CT appearance of the primary tumor and metastasis, as well as the imaging pitfalls, so that an accurate assessment of disease burden is made prior to treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cancer Research UK (2012) Cervical cancer incidence statistics. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/cervix/incidence/. Accessed 17 Aug 2014

  2. http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-gender. Accessed 17 Aug 2014

  3. International Agency for Research on Cancer (2013) WHO Press Release 12 Dec 2013. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2013/pdfs/pr223_E.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2014

  4. Lea JS, Lin KS (2012) Cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 39:233–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barwick TD, Taylor A, Rockall A (2013) Functional Imaging to predict tumor response in locally advanced cervical cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 15:549–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Green JA, Kirwan JM, Tierney JF, et al. (2001) Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 358:781–786

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Grigsby PW (2007) The contribution of new imaging techniques in staging cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 107:S10–S12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Amendola MA, Hricak H, Mitchell DG, et al. (2005) Utilization of diagnostic studies in the pretreatment evaluation of invasive cervical cancer in the United States: results of intergroup protocol ACRIN 6651/GOG 183. J of Clin Oncol 23:7454–7459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F, et al. (2006) Early invasive cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 24:5687–5694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chung HH, Kang KW, Cho JY, et al. (2010) Role of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in preoperative lymph node detection of uterine cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:156e1-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al. (2005) Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 23:9329–9337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Narayan K (2005) Arguments for a magnetic resonance imaging-assisted FIGO staging system for cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:573–582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel CN, Nazir SA, Khan Z, Gleeson FV, Bradley KM (2011) 18F-FDG PET/CT of cervical carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 196:1225–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB, Myers ER (2005) FDG-PET for management of cervical and ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 97:183–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rockall AG, Cross S, Flanagan S, Moore E, Avril N (2012) The role of FDG-PET/CT in gynaecological cancers. Cancer Imaging 12:49–65

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al. (1997) Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 350:535–540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, et al. (2000) Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18:1606–1613

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, et al. (1999) A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol 73:177–183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 105:107–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pecorelli S (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105:103–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kido A, Fujimoto K, Okada T, Togashi K (2013) Advanced MRI in malignant neoplasms of the uterus. JMRI 37:249–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sala EA, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, Mitchell DG, Reinhold C (2013) The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patient with gyne malignancies. Radiology 266:717–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Freeman SJ, Aly AM, Kataoka MY, et al. (2012) The revised FIGO staging system for uterine malignancies: implications for MR imaging. Radiographics 32:1805–1827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D (2007) MRI of Malignant Neoplasms of the Uterine Corpus and Cervix. AJR 188:1577–1587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sheu MH, Chang CY, Wang JH, Yen MS (2001) Preoperative staging of cervical carcinoma with MR imaging: a reappraisal of diagnostic accuracy and pitfalls. Eur Radiol 11:1828–1833

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Togashi K, Nishimura K, Sagoh T, et al. (1989) Carcinoma of the cervix: staging with MR imaging. Radiology 171:245–251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Koyama T, Tamai K, Togashi K (2007) Staging of carcinoma of the uterine cervix and endometrium. Eur Radiol 17:2009–2019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zand KR, Reinhold C, Abe H, et al. (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervix. Cancer Imaging 7:69–76

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Qin Y, Peng Z, Lou J, et al. (2009) Discrepancies between clinical staging and pathological findings of operable cervical carcinoma with stage IB-IIB: a retrospective analysis of 818 patients. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 49:542–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lai CH, Yen TC, Ng KK (2010) Surgical and radiologic staging of cervical cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 22:15–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bellomi M, Bonomo G, Landoni F, et al. (2005) Accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of lymph node involvement in cervix carcinoma. Eur Radiol 15:2469–2474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hori M, Kim T, Murakami T, et al. (2009) Uterine cervical carcinoma: preoperative staging with 3.0-T MR imaging–comparison with 1.5-T MR imaging. Radiology 251:96–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chung HH, Kang SB, Cho JY, et al. (2007) Can preoperative MRI accurately evaluate nodal and parametrial invasion in early stage cervical cancer? Jpn J Clin Oncol 37:370–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pandharipande PV, Choy G, del Carmen MG, et al. (2009) MRI and PET/CT for triaging stage IB clinically operable cervical cancer to appropriate therapy: decision analysis to assess patient outcomes. AJR 192:802–814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lin G, Ho KC, Wang JJ, et al. (2008) Detection of lymph node metastasis in cervical and uterine cancers by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:128–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chung HH, Kang KW, Cho JY, et al. (2010) Role of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in preoperative lymph node detection of uterine cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(156):e151–e155

    Google Scholar 

  37. Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS, et al. (2006) Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer 106:914–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Park W, Park YJ, Huh SJ, et al. (2005) The usefulness of MRI and PET imaging for the detection of parametrial involvement and lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 35:260–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jeong YY, Kang HK, Chung TW, Seo JJ, Park JG (2003) Uterine cervical carcinoma after therapy: CT and MR imaging findings. Radiographics 23:969–981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tanderup K, Georg D, Potter R, et al. (2010) Adaptive management of cervical cancer radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 20:121–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Levy A, Caramella C, Chargar C, et al. (2011) Accuracy of Diffusion-Weighted Echo-Planar MR Imaging and ADC Mapping in the evaluation of residual Cervical Carcinoma after radiation therapy. Gynecol Oncol 123:110–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kim HS, Kim CK, Park BK, Huh SJ, Kim B (2013) Evaluation of therapeutic response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:187–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kuang F, Yan Z, Wang J, Rao Z (2014) The value of diffusion-weighted MRI to evaluate the response to radiochemotherapy for cervical cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 32:342–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Somoye G, Harry V, Semple S, et al. (2012) Early diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging can predict survival in women with locally advanced cancer of the cervix treated with combined chemo-radiation. Eur Radiol 22:2319–2327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Levy A, Medjhoul A, Caramella C, et al. (2011) Interest of diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient mapping in gynecological malignancies: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:1020–1027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Miccò M, Vargas HA, Burger IA, et al. (2014) Combined pre-treatment MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters as prognostic biomarkers in patients with cervical cancer. Eur J Radiol 83:1169–1176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wakefield JC, Downey K, Kyriazi S, deSouza NM (2013) New MR techniques in gynecologic cancer. Am J Roentgenol 200:249–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Payne GS, Schmidt M, Morgan VA, et al. (2010) Evaluation of magnetic resonance diffusion and spectroscopy measurements as predictive biomarkers in stage 1 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 116:246–252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Punwani S (2011) Contrast enhanced MR imaging of female pelvic cancers: established methods and emerging applications. Eur J Radiol 78:2–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Charles-Edwards E, Messiou C, Morgan VA, et al. (2008) Diffusion weighted imaging in cervical cancer with an endovaginal technique: potential value for improving tumor detection in stage Ia and Ib1 disease. Radiology 249:541–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hricak H, Hamm B, Semelka RC, et al. (1991) Carcinoma of the uterus: use of gadopentetate dimeglumine in MR imaging. Radiology 181:95–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Punwani S (2011) Diffusion weighted imaging of female pelvic cancers: concepts and clinical applications. Eur J Radiol 78:21–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Signorelli M, Guerra L, Montanelli L, et al. (2011) Preoperative staging of cervical cancer: is 18-FDG-PET/CT really effective in patients with early stage disease? Gynecol Oncol 123:236–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F (2001) Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 19:3745–3749

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M, et al. (2006) Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical early-stage cervical cancer: detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 238:272–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, et al. (2001) Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology 218:776–782

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sakuragi N (2007) Up-to-date management of lymph node metastasis and the role of tailored lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 12:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ryu SY, Kim MH, Choi SC, Choi CW, Lee KH (2003) Detection of early recurrence with 18F-FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 44:347–352

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Choi J, Kim HJ, Jeong YH, et al. (2014) The role of (18) F-FDG PET/CT in assessing therapy response in cervix cancer after concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:130–136

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW (2007) The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival. Cancer 110:1738–1744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Weber WA (2005) Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med 46:983–995

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I (2007) Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 48:932–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, et al. (2014) Fusin of PET and MRI for staging of uterine cervical cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI. Clin Imaging 38:464–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kim SK, Choi HJ, Park SY, et al. (2009) Additional value of MR/PET fusion compared with PET/CT in the detection of lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 45:2103–2109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, et al. (2010) Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in cervical cancer: relationship to prognosis. J Clin Oncol 28:2108–2113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Martínez A, Mery E, Filleron T, et al. (2013) Accuracy of intraoperative pathological examination of sentinel lymph node in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 130:525–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Agarwal S, Schmeler KM, Ramirez PT, et al. (2011) Outcomes of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer of high-risk histological subtypes. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:123–127

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. National Cancer Institute: NCI Clinical Announcement (1999) United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda

  69. Son H, Kositwattanarerk A, Hayes MP, et al. (2010) PET/CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. Radiographics 30:1251–1268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Evans KD, Tulloss TA, Hall N (2007) 18FDG uptake in brown fat: potential for false positives. Radiol Technol 78:361–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Subhas N, Patel PV, Pannu HK, et al. (2005) Imaging of pelvic malignancies with in-line FDG PET-CT: case examples and common pitfalls of FDG PET. Radiographics 25:1031–1043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ulaner GA, Lyall A (2013) Identifying and Distinguishing Treatment Effects and Complications from Malignancy at FDG PET/CT. Radiographics 33:1817–1834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Treglia G, Taralli S, Salsano M, et al. (2014) Prevalence and malignancy risk of focal colorectal incidental uptake detected by (18)F-FDG-PET or PET/CT: a meta-analysis. Radiol Oncol 48:99–104

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Israel O, Yefremov N, Bar-Shalom R, et al. (2005) PET/CT detection of unexpected gastrointestinal foci of 18F-FDG uptake: incidence, localization patterns, and clinical significance. J Nucl Med 46:758–762

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Sudderuddin S, Helbren E, Telesca M, Williamson R, Rockall A (2014) MRI appearances of benign uterine disease. Clin Radiol 69:1095–1104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Allen BC, Hosseinzadeh K, Qasem SA, Varner A, Leyendecker JR (2014) Practical approach to MRI of female pelvic masses. Am J Roentgenol 202:1366–1375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Fayad LM, Cohade C, Wahl RL, Fishman EK (2003) Sacral Fractures: A Potential Pitfall of FDG Positron Emission Tomography. American Journal of Roentgenology 181:1239–1243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Rolton DJ, Blagg SE, Hughes RJ (2011) Osteoradionecrosis of the lumbar spine 25 years after radiotherapy. J Bone Joint Surg 93:1279–1281

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Salavati A, Shah V, Wang ZJ, et al. (2011) F-18 FDG PET/CT findings in postradiation pelvic insufficiency fracture. Clin Imaging 35:139–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA

    Joanna Kusmirek, Jessica Robbins, Hailey Allen & Elizabeth A. Sadowski

  2. Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA

    Lisa Barroilhet & Elizabeth A. Sadowski

  3. Radiation Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA

    Bethany Anderson

Authors
  1. Joanna Kusmirek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica Robbins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hailey Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lisa Barroilhet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bethany Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elizabeth A. Sadowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Sadowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kusmirek, J., Robbins, J., Allen, H. et al. PET/CT and MRI in the imaging assessment of cervical cancer. Abdom Imaging 40, 2486–2511 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0363-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0363-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation