Radiologic Diagnosis of Cancer in Pregnancy

  • Kunle Odunsi
  • Peter E. Schwartz
  • Giancarlo Mari


Cancer and pregnancy often result in two opposing emotional reactions in young women. One leads to dismay and horror, while the other usually to joyous elation. The patient is inevitably distraught and terrified, whilst the obstetrician and medical advisers are faced with a therapeutic dilemma involving diagnostic, obstetric, perinatal, surgical, physiological and moral issues. The situation is further complicated by the fact that pregnancy may limit adequate physical examination, and make clinical evaluation of the extent of malignant disease difficult. Yet an estimated 1 in 1000 women will be affected by cancer in some form while pregnant.1 The most common malignancies in women aged 15 to 34 years are of the breast, cervix and central nervous system, as well as leukemia, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In the 35 to 54 age group, cervical, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer also become more common2 and it is likely that more cases of cancer during pregnancy will be seen as the trend for delaying pregnancy into later reproductive years continues.


Cervical Cancer Pregnant Patient Bone Marrow Involvement Gynecologic Oncology Group Thoracic Compute Tomography 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Donegan WL. Cancer and pregnancy. CA Cancer J Clin 1983; 33: 194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wingo PA, Tong T, Bolden S. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 1995; 45: 8–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Michel C. Radiation embryology. Experientia 1989; 45: 69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mole RH. Irradiation of the embryo and fetus. Br J Radiol 1987; 60: 17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mole RH. The effect of prenatal radiation exposure on the developing human brain. Int J Rad Biol 1990; 57: 647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore MM, Shearer DR. Fetal dose estimates for CT pelvimetry. Radiology 1989; 171: 265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bithel JF. Epidemiological studies of children radiated in-utero. In: Baverstock KF, Stather JW (eds) Low dose radiation: biological basis of risk assessment. London: Taylor & Francis, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilman EA, Stewart AM, Knox EG, Kneale GW. Trends in obstetric radiography, 1931–81. J Radiol Prot 1989; 9: 93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shu XO, Jin F, Linet MS, et al. Diagnostic X-ray and ultrasound exposure and risk of childhood cancer. Br J Cancer 1994; 70: 531PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prasad N, Wright DA, Ford JJ, et al. Safety of 4T MR imaging: study of effects on developing frog embryos. Radiology 1990; 174: 251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rofsky NM, Pizzarello DJ, Weinreb JC, et al. Effect on fetal mouse development of exposures to MR imaging and gadopentetate dimeglumine. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 4: 805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hacker NF, Berek JS, Lagasse LD, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix associated with pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 59: 735–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim SH, Choi BI, Lee HP, et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MRI findings. Radiol 1990; 175: 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim SH, Choi BI, Han JR, et al. Pre-operative staging of uterine cervical cancer: comparison of CT and MRI in 99 patients. JCAT 1993; 17: 633Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heller PB, Malfetano JH, Bundy BN, Barnhill DR, Okagaki T. Clinical-pathologic study of Stage IIB, III, and IVA carcinoma of the cervix: extended diagnostic evaluation for paraaortic node metastasis: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 1990; 38: 425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hawnaur JM, Johnson RJ, Buckley CH, Tindall V, Isherwood I. Staging, volume estimation and assessment of nodal status in carcinoma of the cervix: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with surgical findings. Clin Radiol 1994; 49: 443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin AJ, Poon CS, Thomas GM, Kapusta LR, Shaw PA, Henkleman RM. MR evaluation of cervical cancer in hysterectomy specimens: correlation of quantitative T2 measurement and histology. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 4: 779PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lien HH, Blomlie V, Iversen T, Trope C, Sundfor K, Abeler VM. Clinical Stage I carcinoma of the cervix: value of MR in determining invasion into the parametrium. Acta Radiol 1993; 34: 130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parker SP, Tong T, Bolden S, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997; 47: 5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parente JT, Amsel M, et al. Breast cancer associated with pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 861–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Segreti EM. Management of the obstetric patient with malignancy. In: Sciarra JJ, (ed.) Obstetrics and Gynecology (vol 2 ). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harms S, Flamig D, Hesley K, et al. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation of resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993; 187: 493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Orel S, Schnall M, Powell C, et al. Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR guided biopsy. Radiology 1995; 196: 115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khanusur T, Haick A, Patel B. Evaluation of bone scan as a screening work-up in primary and local-regional recurrence of breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1987; 10: 167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Namura Y, Kondo H, Yamagata J. Evaluation of liver and bone scanning in patients with early breast cancer, based on results obtained from more advanced cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 1978; 14: 1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stewart HL, Monto RW. Hodgkin’s disease and pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1952; 63: 570–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rostock R, Giangreco A, Wharam M, et al. CT scan modification in the treatment of mediastinal Hodgkin’s disease. Cancer 1982; 49: 2267Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hopper H, Diehl L, Lesar M, et al. Hodgkin’s disease: clinical utility of CT in initial staging and treatment. Radiology 1988; 169: 17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tesoro-Tess J, Balzarini L, Ceglia E, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the initial staging of Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Radiol 1991; 12: 81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mauch P, Larsen D, Osteen R, et al. Prognostic factors for positive surgical staging in patients with Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8: 257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ward FT, Weiss RB. Lymphoma and pregnancy. Semin Oncol 1989; 16: 397–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hoanne B, Shields A, Porter B, Shulman H. Detection of lymphomatous bone marrow involvement with magnetic resonance imaging. Blood 1991; 78: 728Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chung A, Birnbaum SJ. Ovarian cancer associated with pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1973; 41: 211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    DePriest PD, Varner E, Powell J, et al. The efficacy of a sonographic morphology index in identifying ovarian cancer: a multi-institutional investigation. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 55: 174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kurjak A, Shalan H, Kupesic S, et al. An attempt to screen asymptomatic women for ovarian and endometrial cancer with transvaginal ultrasound and pulsed Doppler sonography. J Ultrasound Med 1994; 13: 295PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Taylor KJW, Schwartz PE. Screening for early ovarian cancer. Radiology 1994; 192: 1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kier, R, McCarthy SM, Scoutt LM, Viscarello RR, Schwartz PES. Pelvic masses in pregnancy. Radiology 1990; 176: 709–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gastonis C, McNeil BJ. Collaborative evaluations of diagnostic tests: experience of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 1990; 175: 571–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kunle Odunsi
  • Peter E. Schwartz
  • Giancarlo Mari

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations