La radiologia medica

, Volume 114, Issue 6, pp 960–975

Localized cervical cancer (stage <IIB): accuracy of MR imaging in planning less extensive surgery

  • R. Manfredi
  • B. Gui
  • A. Giovanzana
  • S. Marini
  • M. Di Stefano
  • G. Zannoni
  • G. Scambia
  • L. Bonomo
Uro-Genital Radiology/Radiologia Uro-Genitale



This study was undertaken to determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the preoperative staging of patients with clinically localised cervical cancer eligible for less extensive surgery.

Materials and methods

Fifty-three patients with biopsy-proven carcinoma of the uterine cervix and eligible for conservative surgery prospectively underwent MR imaging. Images were assessed for tumour site and size, infiltration of the cervical stroma, infiltration of vaginal fornices and relationship between the tumour and the internal os of the endocervical canal and the presence and dimensions of pelvic and lumboaortic lymph nodes (cutoff values 1 cm and 0.5 cm minimum axial diameter). MR imaging data were compared with the histopathological findings.


The endocervix was the site of origin of 25% (13/53) of the cervical tumours and the exocervix the site of origin of 75% (40/53). In the assessment of cervical stroma infiltration, there was agreement between MR imaging and histopathology in 75% of cases. MR imaging had 67% sensitivity, 92% specificity and 91% diagnostic accuracy in assessing infiltration of the vaginal fornices. In the evaluation of the infiltration of the internal os, MR imaging had 86% sensitivity, 93% specificity and 92% accuracy. In the assessment of the lymph nodes, when using a cutoff value of 1 cm, MR imaging had a sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of 28%, 100% and 89%, respectively. With a cutoff value of 0.5 cm, MR imaging had a sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of 33%, 92% and 83%, respectively.


MR imaging had a high level of accuracy in the preoperative assessment of the extent of cervical tumour in patients eligible for conservative surgery. Accuracy is lower in the evaluation of the pelvic and lumboaortic lymph nodes.


Uterine neoplasms Cervical cancer Magnetic resonance imaging Staging 

Carcinoma della cervice uterina localizzato (stadio<IIB): accuratezza della RM nella pianificazione di una chirurgia meno estesa



Valutare l’accuratezza della RM nella stadiazione pre-operatoria delle neoplasie localizzate della cervice uterina, candidate ad una chirurgia meno aggressiva.

Materiali e metodi

Sono state sottoposte ad esame RM 53 pazienti con carcinoma della cervice uterina confermato istologicamente, candidate a chirurgia conservativa. L’analisi delle immagini ha compreso: localizzazione e dimensioni del tumore, infiltrazione dell’anello stromale, infiltrazione dei fornici vaginali ed estensione oltre l’orifizio uterino interno, presenza e dimensioni di linfonodi pelvici o lombo-aortici (valore soglia 1 cm e 0,5 cm di diametro assiale minimo). I risultati sono stati confrontati con quelli istopatologici.


Nella valutazione dell’infiltrazione dello stroma cervicale vi è stata una concordanza RM/istopatologia in 40/53 (75%) casi. Nella valutazione dell’infiltrazione dei fornici vaginali la RM ha riportato una sensibilità del 67%,una specificità del 92% ed un’accuratezza diagnostica del 91%; nella valutazione dell’estensione oltre l’orifizio uterino interno dell’ 86%, 93% e 92%, rispettivamente. Nella valutazione dei linfonodi la RM ha riportato una sensibilità, specificità ed accuratezza diagnostica del 28%, 100% e 89%, usando come valore soglia 1 cm; e del 33%, 92% e 83%, con un valore soglia di 0,5 cm.


La RM ha dimostrato un’elevata accuratezza nella valutazione pre-operatoria dell’estensione (T) tumorale in pazienti candidate ad intervento chirurgico conservativo. L’accuratezza è minore nella valutazione dei linfonodi pelvici e lombo-aortici.

Parole chiave

Neoplasie dell’utero Carcinoma della cervice Risonanza magnetica Stadiazione 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Narayan K (2005) Arguments for a magnetic resonance imaging-assisted FIGO staging system for cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:573–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol 23:9329–9337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Di Saja PJ (1981) Surgical aspects of cervical carcinoma. Cancer 48:548–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benedetti-Panici P, Scambia G, Baiocchi G et al (1993) Radical hysterectomy: a randomized study comparing two techniques for resection of the cardinal ligament. Gynecol Oncol 50:226–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Larson DM, Johnson K, Olson KA (1992) Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy for surgical staging of endometrial cancer. Morbidity and mortality. Obstet Gynecol 79:998–1001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scambia G, Ferrandina G, Di Stefano M et al (2001) Is there a place for a less extensive radical surgery in locally advanced cervical cancer patients? Gynecol Oncol 83:319–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sakuragi T, Satoh C, Takeda N et al (1999) Incidence and distribution pattern of pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastasis in patients with stages IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer 85:1547–1554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benedetti-Panici P, Maneschi F, D’Andrea G et al (2000) Early cervical carcinoma. The natural history of lymph node involvement redefined on the basis of thorough parametrectomy and giant section study. Cancer 88:2267–2274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reznek RH, Sahdev A (2005) MR imaging in cervical cancer: seeing is believing The 2004 Mackenzie Davidson Memorial Lecture. Br J Radiol 78:72–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG et al (1988) Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical finding. Radiology 166:623–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sironi S, Belloni C, Taccagni GL, Del Maschio A (1991) carcinoma of the cervix: value of MR imaging in detecting parametrial involvement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 156:753–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Togashi K, Nishimura K, Sagoh T et al (1989) Carcinoma of the cervix: staging with MR imaging. Radiology 171:245–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nicolet V, Carignan L, Bourdon F, Prosmanne O (2000) MR imaging of cervical carcinoma: a practical staging approach. RadioGraphics 20:1539–1549PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benedetti Panici P. Scambia G, Baiocchi G et al (1992) Anatomical study of para-aortic and pelvic lymph nodes in gynecologic malignancies. Obstet Gynecol 79:498–502Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP (1974) Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Ostet Gynecol 44:265–272Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bergmark K, Avall-Lundqvist E, Dickman PW et al (1999) Vaginal changes and sexuality in women with a history of cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1383–1389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 11:1828–1833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheidler J, Heuck AF (2002) Imaging of cancer of the cervix. Radiol Clin North Am 40:577–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manfredi R, Baltieri S, Tognolini A et al (2008) Recurrent uterine cancer after surgery: magnetic resonance imaging patterns and their changes after concomitant chemoradiation. Radiol Med 113:1143–1156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roy M, Plante M (1998) Pregnancies after radical vaginal trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179:1491–1496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plante M, Roy M (2001) New approaches in the surgical management of early stage cervical cancer. Curr Opinion Ostet Gynecol 13:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shaved A, Jones J, Shepherd JH, Reznek RH (2005) MR imaging appearances of the female pelvis after trachelectomy. RadioGraphics 25:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK et al (1997) Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer: meta-analysis. JAMA 278:1096–1101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Osarlak O, Tjalma W, Schepens E et al (2003) The correlation of preoperative CT, MR imaging, and clinical staging (FIGO) with histopathology findings in primary cervical carcinoma. Eur Rad 13:2338–2345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    McCauley TR, Rifkin MD, Ledet CA (2002) Pelvic lymph node visualization with MR imaging using local administration of ultra-small superparamagnetic iron oxide contrast. JMRI 15:492–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams AD, Cousins, 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
  28. 28.
    Bellomi M, Bonomo G, Bandoni F et al (2005) Accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of lymph node involvement in cervix carcinoma. Eur Rad 15:2469–2474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    Barentsz JO, Fütterer JJ, Takahashi S (2007) Use of ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide in lymph node MR imaging in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Radiol 63:369–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Manfredi
    • 1
  • B. Gui
    • 2
  • A. Giovanzana
    • 1
  • S. Marini
    • 1
  • M. Di Stefano
    • 4
  • G. Zannoni
    • 3
  • G. Scambia
    • 4
  • L. Bonomo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Bioimages and Radiological Sciences“A. Gemelli” University HospitalRomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of Pathology“A. Gemelli” University HospitalRomeItaly
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology“A. Gemelli” University HospitalRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations