Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Added Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Endometrial Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Diffusion Weighted Imaging of the Genitourinary System

Abstract

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy in developed countries with a rising incidence mainly related to obesity. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been recognized to be the gold standard imaging modality to accurately assess tumor staging and help stratify patient treatment. In this review, we will discuss the advantages and challenges of MRI staging of endometrial cancer with a particular focus on the MRI acquisition protocol and the role of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

D&C:

Dilatation and curettage

DCE-MRI:

Dynamic multiphase contrast-enhanced imaging

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

ESMO:

European Society of Medical Oncology

FIGO:

International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics

FOV:

Field of view

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

NCCN:

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

SLN:

Sentinel nodes mapping

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen X, Xiang YB, Long JR, et al. Genetic polymorphisms in obesity-related genes and endometrial cancer risk. Cancer. 2012;118(13):3356–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cramer DW. The epidemiology of endometrial and ovarian cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2012;26(1):1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kinkel K, Forstner R, Danza FM, et al. Staging of endometrial cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(7):1565–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ben-Shachar I, Vitellas KM, Cohn DE. The role of MRI in the conservative management of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93(1):233–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bharwani N, Miquel ME, Sahdev A, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the assessment of tumour grade in endometrial cancer. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1007):997–1004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kishimoto K, Tajima S, Maeda I, et al. Endometrial cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with tumor cellularity and tumor grade. Acta Radiol. 2016;57(8):1021–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nougaret S, Reinhold C, Alsharif SS, et al. Endometrial cancer: combined MR volumetry and diffusion-weighted imaging for assessment of myometrial and lymphovascular invasion and tumor grade. Radiology. 2015;276(3):797–808.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Rechichi G, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, et al. Endometrial cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with tumor grade, depth of myometrial invasion, and presence of lymph node metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(1):256–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K, Feldstein VA, et al. Endovaginal ultrasound to exclude endometrial cancer and other endometrial abnormalities. JAMA. 1998;280(17):1510–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ghezzi F, Uccella S, Cromi A, et al. Lymphoceles, lymphorrhea, and lymphedema after laparoscopic and open endometrial cancer staging. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(1):259–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferraioli D, Chopin N, Beurrier F, Carrabin N, Buenerd A, Mathevet P. The incidence and clinical significance of the micrometastases in the sentinel lymph nodes during surgical staging for early endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(4):673–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rossi EC, Jackson A, Ivanova A, Boggess JF. Detection of sentinel nodes for endometrial cancer with robotic assisted fluorescence imaging: cervical versus hysteroscopic injection. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(9):1704–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Holloway RW, Bravo RA, Rakowski JA, et al. Detection of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with endometrial cancer undergoing robotic-assisted staging: a comparison of colorimetric and fluorescence imaging. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):25–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barlin JN, Khoury-Collado F, Kim CH, et al. The importance of applying a sentinel lymph node mapping algorithm in endometrial cancer staging: beyond removal of blue nodes. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(3):531–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Khoury-Collado F, Murray MP, Hensley ML, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer improves the detection of metastatic disease to regional lymph nodes. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122(2):251–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Frimer M, Khoury-Collado F, Murray MP, Barakat RR, Abu-Rustum NR. Micrometastasis of endometrial cancer to sentinel lymph nodes: is it an artifact of uterine manipulation? Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119(3):496–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. Uterine neoplasms, version 1.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2014;12(2):248–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Imai K, Kato H, Katayama K, et al. A preoperative risk-scoring system to predict lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer and stratify patients for lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;142(2):273–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Holloway RW, Gupta S, Stavitzski NM, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping with staging lymphadenectomy for patients with endometrial cancer increases the detection of metastasis. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;141(2):206–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sadowski EA, Robbins JB, Guite K, et al. Preoperative pelvic MRI and serum cancer antigen-125: selecting women with grade 1 endometrial cancer for lymphadenectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(5):W556–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Frost JA, Webster KE, Bryant A, Morrison J. Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(9):CD007585.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Todo Y, Watari H, Kang S, Sakuragi N. Tailoring lymphadenectomy according to the risk of lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(2):317–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(1):16–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Colombo N, Preti E, Landoni F, et al. Endometrial cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(Suppl 6):vi33–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Batista TP, Cavalcanti CL, Tejo AA, Bezerra AL. Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis for predicting the final pathology grading in uterine endometrioid carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(9):1367–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams AR, Brechin S, Porter AJ, Warner P, Critchley HO. Factors affecting adequacy of Pipelle and Tao brush endometrial sampling. BJOG. 2008;115(8):1028–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dijkhuizen FP, Mol BW, Brolmann HA, Heintz AP. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. Cancer. 2000;89(8):1765–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Inoue C, Fujii S, Kaneda S, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in endometrial carcinoma: effect of region of interest methods on ADC values. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40(1):157–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(3):682–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH. Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient map of diffusion-weighted MRI in endometrial cancer: a preliminary correlation study with histological grade. Acta Radiol. 2014;55(10):1270–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Takahashi M, Kozawa E, Tanisaka M, Hasegawa K, Yasuda M, Sakai F. Utility of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps obtained using 3.0T MRI for distinguishing uterine carcinosarcoma from endometrial carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43(6):1301–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mainenti PP, Pizzuti LM, Segreto S, et al. Diffusion volume (DV) measurement in endometrial and cervical cancer: a new MRI parameter in the evaluation of the tumor grading and the risk classification. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(1):113–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kigawa J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating benign from malignant uterine endometrial cavity lesions: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(2):384–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Horta M, Cunha T. Endometrial cancer. In: Forstner R, Cunha T, Hamm B, editors. MRI and CT of the female pelvis. Berlin: Springer; 2016. p. 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of endometrial cancer: differentiation from benign endometrial lesions and preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(8):947–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Inada Y, Matsuki M, Nakai G, et al. Body diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer: is it helpful in the detection of cancer in nonenhanced MR imaging? Eur J Radiol. 2009;70(1):122–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kilickesmez O, Bayramoglu S, Inci E, Cimilli T, Kayhan A. Quantitative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of normal and diseased uterine zones. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(3):340–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Koplay M, Dogan NU, Erdogan H, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted MRI for pre-operative assessment of myometrial and cervical invasion and pelvic lymph node metastasis in endometrial carcinoma. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2014;58(5):538–46; quiz 648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hori M, Kim T, Onishi H, et al. Endometrial cancer: preoperative staging using three-dimensional T2-weighted turbo spin-echo and diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3.0T: a prospective comparative study. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(8):2296–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lin G, Huang YT, Chao A, et al. Endometrial cancer with cervical stromal invasion: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging at 3T. Eur Radiol. 2016;27:2400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kim SH, Kim SC, Choi BI, Han MC. Uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastasis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1994;190(3):807–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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(3):759–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Choi HJ, Kim SH, Seo SS, et al. MRI for pretreatment lymph node staging in uterine cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(5):W538–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fehniger J, Thomas S, Lengyel E, et al. A prospective study evaluating diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) in the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis in suspected gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;142(1):169–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tjalma WA, van Dam PA, Makar AP, Cruickshank DJ. The clinical value and the cost-effectiveness of follow-up in endometrial cancer patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004;14(5):931–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Testa AC, Di Legge A, Virgilio B, et al. Which imaging technique should we use in the follow up of gynaecological cancer? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(5):769–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fung-Kee-Fung M, Dodge J, Elit L, et al. Follow-up after primary therapy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;101(3):520–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sartori E, Pasinetti B, Carrara L, Gambino A, Odicino F, Pecorelli S. Pattern of failure and value of follow-up procedures in endometrial and cervical cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107(1 Suppl 1):S241–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sohaib SA, Houghton SL, Meroni R, Rockall AG, Blake P, Reznek RH. Recurrent endometrial cancer: patterns of recurrent disease and assessment of prognosis. Clin Radiol. 2007;62(1):28–34; discussion 5–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tirumani SH, Shanbhogue AK, Prasad SR. Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of endometrial and cervical carcinomas. Radiol Clin N Am. 2013;51(6):1087–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Nakamura K, Imafuku N, Nishida T, et al. Measurement of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) of the primary tumor and CA125 are predictive of disease recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124(2):335–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sala E, Rockall A, Rangarajan D, Kubik-Huch RA. The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the female pelvis. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76(3):367–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Nougaret S, Tirumani SH, Addley H, Pandey H, Sala E, Reinhold C. Pearls and pitfalls in MRI of gynecologic malignancy with diffusion-weighted technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):261–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Nishie A, Stolpen AH, Obuchi M, Kuehn DM, Dagit A, Andresen K. Evaluation of locally recurrent pelvic malignancy: performance of T2- and diffusion-weighted MRI with image fusion. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(3):705–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kitajima K, Tanaka U, Ueno Y, et al. Role of diffusion weighted imaging and contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of intrapelvic recurrence of gynecological malignant tumor. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):e0117411.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Bozkurt M, Doganay S, Kantarci M, et al. Comparison of peritoneal tumor imaging using conventional MR imaging and diffusion-weighted MR imaging with different b values. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(2):224–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Institut Régional du Cancer de Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Stephanie Nougaret M.D. Ph.D.

  2. IRCM, Institut de Recherche en Cancérologie de Montpellier, INSERM, U1194, Montpellier, France

    Stephanie Nougaret M.D. Ph.D.

  3. Department of Radiology, Addenbrokes Hospital, Cambridge, UK

    Helen Addley

  4. Department of Radiology, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, Lisbon, Portugal

    Mariana Horta & Teresa Margarida Cunha

  5. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Evis Sala

Authors
  1. Stephanie Nougaret M.D. Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen Addley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mariana Horta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Teresa Margarida Cunha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Evis Sala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Nougaret M.D. Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Professor and Chair, Radiology Department, Hacettepe University School of Medicine Radiology Department, Ankara, Turkey

    Deniz Akata

  2. Head of Computational Clinical Imaging Group, Centre for the Unknown, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal

    Nikolaos Papanikolaou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nougaret, S., Addley, H., Horta, M., Cunha, T.M., Sala, E. (2018). Added Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Endometrial Cancer. In: Akata, D., Papanikolaou, N. (eds) Diffusion Weighted Imaging of the Genitourinary System. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69575-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69575-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69574-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69575-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation