Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ultrasound in Gynecological Cancer: Is It Time for Re-evaluation of Its Uses?

  • Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ultrasound is the primary imaging modality in gynecological oncology. Over the last decade, there has been a massive technology development which led to a dramatic improvement in the quality ultrasound imaging. If performed by an experienced sonographer, ultrasound has an invaluable role in the primary diagnosis of gynecological cancer, in the assessment of tumor extent in the pelvis and abdominal cavity, in the evaluation of the treatment response, and in follow-up. Ultrasound is also a valuable procedure for monitoring patients treated with fertility-sparing surgery. Furthermore, it is an ideal technique to guide tru-cut biopsy for the collection of material for histology. Taking into consideration that besides its accuracy, the ultrasound is a commonly available, non-invasive, and inexpensive imaging method that can be carried out without any risk or discomfort to the patient; it is time to reconsider its role in gynecologic oncology and to allocate resources for a specialized education of future experts in ultrasound imaging in gynecology.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Kaijser J, Vandecaveye V, Deroose C, et al. Imaging techniques for the pre-surgical diagnosis of adnexal tumors. Best Prac Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;in print. A review article summarizing the results of recently published studies on the role of imaging in diagnostics of ovarian cancer.

  2. Fischerova D, Burgetova A. Imaging techniques for the evaluation of ovarian cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(5):697–720. A review article summarizing the results of recently published studies on the role of imaging in ovarian cancer staging.

  3. Epstein E, Blomqvist L. Imaging in endometrial cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(5):721–39. A review article summarizing the results of recently published studies on ultrasound in diagnostics and staging of endometrial cancer.

  4. Testa AC, Di Legge A, De Blasis I, et al. Imaging techniques for the evaluation of cervical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(5):741–68. A review article summarizing the results of recently published studies on ultrasound in diagnostics and staging of cervical cancer.

  5. 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. A review article summarizing the results of recently published studies on ultrasound in the follow-up of gynecological cancer.

  6. Fischerova D, Cibula D, Dundr P, et al. Ultrasound-guided tru-cut biopsy in the management of advanced abdomino-pelvic tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(4):833–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zikan M, Fischerova D, Pinkavova I, et al. Ultrasound-guided tru-cut biopsy of abdominal and pelvic tumors in gynecology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(6):767–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa AC, et al. Ovarian cancer prediction in adnexal masses using ultrasound-based logistic regression models: a temporal and external validation study by the IOTA group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(2):226–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(6):681–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ. 2010;341:c6839.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaijser J, Bourne T, Valentin L, et al. Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(1):9–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sayasneh A, Kaijser J, Preisler J, et al. A multicenter prospective external validation of the diagnostic performance of IOTA simple descriptors and rules to characterize ovarian masses. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130(1):140–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16(5):500–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):103–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T, et al. Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(5):1102–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology. 1988;166(3):623–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, et al. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86(1):43–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9329–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F, et al. 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. 2006;24(36):5687–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chiappa V, Di Legge A, Valentini AL, et al. Agreement of two-dimensional and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging with regard to parametrial infiltration in cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014.

  21. Fischerova D. Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecological tumors: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(3):246–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fischerova D, Cibula D, Stenhova H, et al. Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(4):766–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Testa AC, Ludovisi M, Manfredi R, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of presence, size and extent of invasive cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(3):335–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Epstein E, Testa A, Gaurilcikas A, et al. Early-stage cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound—a European multicenter trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(3):449–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fischerova D, Zikan M, Pinkavova I, et al. The role of ultrasound in planning fertility sparing surgery and individual treatment in early stage cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40 Suppl 1:51.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Palsdottir K, Fischerova D, Franchi D, et al. Preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis and deep stromal invasion in women with invasive cervical cancer—a prospective multicenter study on 2D and 3D ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014.

  27. Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS, et al. 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. 2006;106(4):914–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim SK, Choi HJ, Park SY, et al. Additional value of MR/PET fusion compared with PET/CT in the detection of lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(12):2103–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

  30. Van Holsbeke C, Ameye L, Testa AC, et al. Development and external validation of new ultrasound-based mathematical models for preoperative prediction of high-risk endometrial cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(5):586–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Valentin L. Ultrasound deserves to play a prominent role in the diagnosis and management of endometrial cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(5):483–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Savelli L, Ceccarini M, Ludovisi M, et al. Preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer: transvaginal sonography vs. magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(5):560–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Antonsen SL, Jensen LN, Loft A, et al. MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer—a multicenter prospective comparative study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(2):300–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ortoft G, Dueholm M, Mathiesen O, et al. Preoperative staging of endometrial cancer using TVS, MRI, and hysteroscopy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(5):536–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shin KE, Park BK, Kim CK, et al. MR staging accuracy for endometrial cancer based on the new FIGO stage. Acta Radiol. 2011;52(7):818–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fischerova D, Fruhauf F, Zikan M, et al. Factors affecting sonographic preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(5):575–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones 3rd H, et al. FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO committee on gynecologic oncology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000;70(2):209–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Epstein E, Van Holsbeke C, Mascilini F, et al. Gray-scale and color Doppler ultrasound characteristics of endometrial cancer in relation to stage, grade and tumor size. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(5):586–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hricak H, Rubinstein LV, Gherman GM, et al. MR imaging evaluation of endometrial carcinoma: results of an NCI cooperative study. Radiology. 1991;179(3):829–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Eriksson LS, Lindqvist PG, Floter Radestad A, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound assessment of myometrial and cervical stroma invasion in women with endometrial cancer—interobserver reproducibility among ultrasound experts and gynaecologists. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014.

  41. Verleye L, Vergote I, van der Zee AG. Patterns of care in surgery for ovarian cancer in Europe. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36 Suppl 1:S108–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Woo YL, Kyrgiou M, Bryant A, et al. Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancers—a Cochrane systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(2):286–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Valentin L, Hagen B, Tingulstad S, et al. Comparison of ‘pattern recognition’ and logistic regression models for discrimination between benign and malignant pelvic masses: a prospective cross validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18(4):357–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T, et al. Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(22):1706–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Van Gorp T, Veldman J, Van Calster B, et al. Subjective assessment by ultrasound is superior to the risk of malignancy index (RMI) or the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) in discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(11):1649–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Valentin L, Jurkovic D, Van Calster B, et al. Adding a single CA 125 measurement to ultrasound imaging performed by an experienced examiner does not improve preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(3):345–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ameye L, Timmerman D, Valentin L, et al. Clinically oriented three-step strategy for assessment of adnexal pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(5):582–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Van Calster B, Van Hoorde K, Valentin L, et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ. 2014;349:g5920.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Testa AC, Ludovisi M, Mascilini F, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of disease to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(1):99–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Spencer JA, Anderson K, Weston M, et al. Image guided biopsy in the management of cancer of the ovary. Cancer Imaging. 2006;6:144–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Mascilini F, et al. Dynamic and interactive gynecological ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(2):225–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Abu-Alfa AK. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast agents. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2011;18(3):188–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Internal Grant Agency of the Ministry of Health (grant no. 13070), by the research project RVO-VFN64165, and by Charles University in Prague (UNCE 204024 and PRVOUK-P27/LF1/1). The authors would like to thank Adam Preisler from the Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University in Prague, for providing the illustrations and tables.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

Daniela Fischerova and David Cibula declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Charles University in Prague, Apolinarska 18, 120 00, Prague, Czech Republic

    Daniela Fischerova & David Cibula

Authors
  1. Daniela Fischerova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Cibula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Fischerova.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Gynecologic Cancers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fischerova, D., Cibula, D. Ultrasound in Gynecological Cancer: Is It Time for Re-evaluation of Its Uses?. Curr Oncol Rep 17, 28 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-015-0449-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-015-0449-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation