European Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 2024–2032 | Cite as

Node-by-node correlation between MR and PET/CT in patients with uterine cervical cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging versus size-based criteria on T2WI

  • Eugene K. Choi
  • Jeong Kon KimEmail author
  • Hyuck Jae Choi
  • Seong Ho Park
  • Bum-Woo Park
  • Namkug Kim
  • Jae Seung Kim
  • Ki Chun Im
  • Gyunggoo Cho
  • Kyoung-Sik Cho
Magnetic Resonance


The purpose of the study was to perform a node-by-node comparison of an ADC-based diagnosis and various size-based criteria on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) with regard to their correlation with PET/CT findings in patients with uterine cervical cancer. In 163 patients with 339 pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) with short-axis diameter >5 mm, the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), mean ADC, short- and long-axis diameters, and ratio of long- to short-axis diameters (L/S ratio) were compared in PET/CT-positive and -negative LNs. On PET/CT, 118 (35%) LNs in 58 patients were positive. The mean value of minimum and mean ADCs, short- and long-axis diameters, and L/S ratio were different in PET/CT-positive (0.6436 × 10−3 mm2/s, 0.756 × 10−3 mm2/s, 10.3 mm, 13.2 mm, 1.32, respectively) and PET/CT-negative LNs (0.8893 × 10−3 mm2/s, 1.019 × 10−3 mm2/s, 7.4 mm, 11.0 mm, 1.49, respectively) (P < 0.05). The Az value of the minimum ADC (0.864) was greater than those of mean ADC (0.836), short-axis diameter (0.764), long-axis diameter (0.640) and L/S ratio (0.652) (P < 0.05). The sensitivity and accuracy of the minimum ADC (86%, 82%) were greater than those of the short-axis diameter (55%, 74%), long-axis diameter (73%, 58%) and L/S ratio (52%, 66%) (P < 0.05). ADC showed superior correlation with PET/CT compared with conventional size-based criteria on T2WI.


Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging Lymphatic metastasis Lymph nodes Uterine cervical neoplasms Comparative study 



This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by a grant of the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health Welfare, Republic of Korea (A070001) and by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) grant funded by the Korean government (MOST) (no. R01-2006-000-10998-0)


  1. 1.
    Kamura T, Tsukamoto N, Tsuruchi N et al (1992) Multivariate analysis of the histopathologic prognostic factors of cervical cancer in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. Cancer 69:181–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Inoue T, Morita K (1990) The prognostic significance of number of positive nodes in cervical carcinoma stages IB, IIA, and IIB. Cancer 65:1923–1927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Girardi F, Haas J (1993) The importance of the histologic processing of pelvic lymph nodes in the treatment of cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 3:12–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michel G, Morice P, Castaigne D et al (1998) Lymphatic spread in stage Ib and II cervical carcinoma: anatomy and surgical implications. Obstet Gynecol 91:360–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 15:2469–2474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bipat S, Glas AS, van der Velden J et al (2003) Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 91:6059–6066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi HJ, Kim SH, Seo SS et al (2006) MRI for pretreatment lymph node staging in uterine cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W538–W543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 106:914–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim SH, Choi BI, Han JK et al (1993) Preoperative staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MRI in 99 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17:633–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 218:776–782PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roy C, Le Bras Y, Mangold L et al (1997) Small pelvic lymph node metastases: evaluation with MR imaging. Clin Radiol 52:437–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams AD, Cousins C, Soutter WP et al (2001) Detection of pelvic lymph node metastases in gynecologic malignancy: a comparison of CT, MR imaging, and positron emission tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:343–348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang WT, Lam WW, Yu MY et al (2000) Comparison of dynamic helical CT and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:759–766PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim JK, Kim KA, Park BW et al (2008) Feasibility of diffusion-weighted imaging in the differentiation of metastatic from nonmetastatic lymph nodes: early experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:714–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 28:128–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nakai G, Matsuki M, Inada Y et al (2008) Detection and evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with gynecologic malignancies using body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32:764–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 238:272–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sugawara Y, Eisbruch A, Kosuda S et al (1999) Evaluation of FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 40:1125–1131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schoder H, Yeung HW, Gonen M et al (2004) Head and neck cancer: clinical usefulness and accuracy of PET/CT image fusion. Radiology 231:65–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hein PA, Kremser C, Judmaier W et al (2003) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring diffusion changes in rectal carcinoma during combined, preoperative chemoradiation: preliminary results of a prospective study. Eur J Radiol 45:214–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim JK, Kim KA, Park BW et al (2008) Feasibility of diffusion weighted imaging in the differentiation of metastatic from non-metastatic lymph nodes: early experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:714–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naganawa S, Sato C, Kumada H et al (2005) Apparent diffusion coefficient in cervical cancer of the uterus: comparison with the normal uterine cervix. Eur Radiol 15:71–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J (2004) Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves. Crit Care 8:508–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sakuragi N, Satoh C, Takeda N et al (1999) Incidence and distribution pattern of pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with Stages IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer 85:1547–1554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim SH, Kim SC, Choi BI et al (1994) Uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastasis with MR imaging. Radiology 190:807–811PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF et al (2003) Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 348:2491–2499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Choi SH, Kim SH, Choi HJ et al (2004) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: results of prospective study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:620–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG et al (1988) Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 166:623–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim JH, Beets GL, Kim MJ et al (2004) High-resolution MR imaging for nodal staging in rectal cancer: are there any criteria in addition to the size? Eur J Radiol 52:78–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen AC, Sung WH, Wang PH et al (2002) Correlation of three-dimensional tumor volumetry with cervical cancer prognostic parameters. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 23:401–404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kodaira T, Fuwa N, Toita T et al (2003) Comparison of prognostic value of MRI and FIGO stage among patients with cervical carcinoma treated with radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:769–777PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sumi M, Sakihama N, Sumi T et al (2003) Discrimination of metastatic cervical lymph nodes with diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with head and neck cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24:1627–1634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al (2008) Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1652–1658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    DeLano MC, Cooper TG, Siebert JE et al (2000) High-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging of adult brain: image contrast and apparent diffusion coefficient map features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21:1830–1836PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene K. Choi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeong Kon Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hyuck Jae Choi
    • 1
  • Seong Ho Park
    • 1
  • Bum-Woo Park
    • 1
  • Namkug Kim
    • 1
  • Jae Seung Kim
    • 3
  • Ki Chun Im
    • 3
  • Gyunggoo Cho
    • 4
  • Kyoung-Sik Cho
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of UlsanSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Radiological SciencesDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of UlsanSeoulKorea
  4. 4.Bio-MR centerKorea Basic Science InstituteChungcheongbuk-doKorea

Personalised recommendations