Advertisement

Cross-Sectional Imaging of the Uterus

  • Karthik Ganesan
  • Ajaykumar C. Morani
  • Leonardo P. Marcal
  • Priya R. Bhosale
  • Khaled M. Elsayes
Chapter

Abstract

The uterine corpus and cervix are prone to a broad spectrum of disorders, ranging from complex developmental anomalies with or without multisystem involvement to neoplastic entities. Ultrasound and sonohysterography have always been in the forefront to assess these structures. However, over the years, cross-sectional imaging techniques, especially MRI, have evolved by leaps and bounds, providing a reliable and reproducible noninvasive three-dimensional view of both these structures and thereby aiding in the precise detection of pathologies. MRI is the current gold standard in assessing numerous pelvic pathologies, including developmental anomalies, endometriosis, and neoplasms. This chapter discusses in length an extensive algorithmic approach to a wide pathological spectrum involving both the uterine corpus and cervix, which would give radiologists better clinico-radio-pathological understanding of these conditions and aid in the provision of a precise road map to the clinician.

Keywords

Uterus Cervix Sonohysterography Computed tomography (CT) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

References

  1. 1.
    Moore KL. The urogenital system. In: Moore KL, Persaud TVN, editors. The developing human: clinically oriented embryology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Laufer MR, Goldstein DP, Hendren WH. Structural abnormalities of the female reproductive tract. In: Emans SJ, Laufer MR, Goldstein DP, editors. Pediatric and adolescent gynecology. 5th ed. Boston: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. p. 362–416.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li S, Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Hricak H. Association of renal agenesis and mullerian duct anomalies. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24(6):829–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edmonds DK. Rokitansky syndrome and other mullerian anomalies. In: Balen AH, Creighton SM, Davies MC, MacDougall J, Stanhope R, editors. Paediatric and adolescent gynaecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004. p. 267–74.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(6):944–55.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233(1):19–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buttram Jr VC, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification—an analysis of 144 cases. Fertil Steril. 1979;32(1):40–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fielding JR. MR imaging of mullerian anomalies: impact on therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(6):1491–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Neill MJ, Yoder IC, Connolly SA, Mueller PR. Imaging evaluation and classification of developmental anomalies of the female reproductive system with an emphasis on MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(2):407–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Giudici MN, Candiani GB. Magnetic resonance imaging in Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;76(4):593–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN, Secaf E, Laros Jr RK, Hill EC. Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1990;176(3):715–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. 1992;183(3):795–800.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patton PE, Novy MJ, Lee DM, Hickok LR. The diagnosis and reproductive outcome after surgical treatment of the complete septate uterus, duplicated cervix and vaginal septum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(6):1669–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Digwani G, Falcone T. Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: diagnosis and management. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999. p. 146.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rock JA, Zacur HA, Dlugi AM, Jones Jr HW, TeLinde RW. Pregnancy success following surgical correction of imperforate hymen and complete transverse vaginal septum. Obstet Gynecol. 1982;59(4):448–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Propst AM, Hill 3rd JA. Anatomic factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2000;18(4):341–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haddad B, Louis-Sylvestre C, Poitout P, Paniel BJ. Longitudinal vaginal septum: a retrospective study of 202 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997;74(2):197–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siegel MJ, Surratt JT. Pediatric gynecologic imaging. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1992;19:103–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fleischer AC. Sonographic assessment of endometrial disorders. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1999;20:259–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Granberg S, Wikland M, Karlsson B, et al. Endometrial thickness as measured by endovaginal ultrasonography for identifying endometrial abnormality. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;164:47–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferrazzi E, Torri V, Trio D, et al. Sonographic endometrial thickness: a useful test to predict atrophy in patients with postmenopausal bleeding—an Italian multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996;7:315–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Connell LP, Fries MH, Zeringue E, Brehm W. Triage of abnormal postmenopausal bleeding: a comparison of endometrial biopsy and transvaginal sonohysterography versus fractional curettage with hysteroscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:956–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cullinan JA, Fleischer AC, Kepple DM, et al. Sonohysterography: a technique for endometrial evaluation. Radiographics. 1995;15:​501–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dubinsky TJ, Parvey HR, Gormaz G, et al. Transvaginal hysterosonography in the evaluation of small endoluminal masses. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grasel P, Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Capuzzi D, Parker L, Hussain SM. Endometrial polyps: MR imaging features and distinction from endometrial carcinoma. Radiology. 2000;214:47–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Mezzetti Jr TP. Endometriosis: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2001;21:193–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huffman JW. Endometriosis in young teen-age girls. Pediatr Ann. 1981;10:44–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clement PB. Pathology of endometriosis. Pathol Ann. 1990;25:245–95.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Revised American Fertility Society classification of endometriosis: 1985. Fertil Steril. 1985;43:351–2.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Olive DL, Schwartz LB. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1759–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patel MD, Feldstein VA, Chen DC, Lipson SD, Filly RA. Endometriomas: diagnostic performance of US. Radiology. 1999;210:739–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Togashi K, Nishimura K, Kimura I, Tsuda Y, Yamashita K, Shibata T, et al. Endometrial cysts: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1991;180:73–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Arrive L, Hricak H, Martin MC. Pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;171:687–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vercellini P, Frontino G, Pietropaolo G, Gattei U, Daguati R, Crosignani PG. Deep endometriosis: definition and clinical management. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2004;11:153–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Donnez J, Squifflet J. Laparoscopic excision of deep endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2004;31:567–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Del Frate C, Girometti R, Pittino M, Del Frate G, Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C. Deep retroperitoneal pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging appearance with laparoscopic correlation. Radiographics. 2006;26(6):​1705–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fedele L, Bianchi S, Portuese A, Borruto F, Dorta M. Transrectal ultrasonography in the assessment of rectovaginal endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(3):444–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Donnez J, Spada F, Squifflet J, et al. Bladder endometriosis must be considered as bladder adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:1175–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(1):43–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, et al., editors. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2008, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/, based on Nov 2010 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2011.
  41. 41.
    Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, Disaia PJ, Silverberg SG, Miller A, Blessing JA. Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63:825–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D. MRI of the malignant neoplasms of uterine corpus and cervix. Am J Radiol AJR. 2007;188:1577–87.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Eltabbakh GH, Shamonki MI, Moody JM, Garafano LL. Laparoscopy as the primary modality for the treatment of women with endometrial carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;91:378–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wong CK, Wong YH, Lo LS, Tai CM, Ng TK. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the surgical staging of endometrial carcinoma. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2005;31:286–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Goldstein RB, Bree RL, Benson CB, Benacerraf BR, Bloss JD, Carlos R, et al. Evaluation of the woman with postmenopausal bleeding: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound–sponsored consensus conference statement. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20(10):​1025–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bourne TH, Campbell S, Steer CV, Royston P, Whitehead MI, Collins P. Detection of endometrial cancer by transvaginal ultrasonography with color flow imaging and blood flow analysis: a preliminary report. Gynecol Oncol. 1991;40:253–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Frei KA, Kinkel K, Bonel HM, Lu Y, Zaloudek C, Hricak H. Prediction of deep myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MR imaging—a meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology. 2000;216:444–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, Margariti PA, Testa A, Zannoni GF, et al. Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology. 2004;231:372–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Barwick TD, Rockall AG, Barton DP, Sohaib SA. Imaging of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Clin Radiol. 2006;61:545–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kim SH, Kim HD, Song YS, Kang SB, Lee HP. Detection of deep myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma: comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, CT, and MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1995;19:766–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, Segal MR, Lu Y, Powell CB, et al. Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology. 1999;212:711–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yamashita Y, Harada M, Sawada T, Takahashi M, Miyazaki K, Okamura H. Normal uterus and FIGO stage I endometrial carcinoma: dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 1993;186:495–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ito K, Matsumoto T, Nakada T, Nakanishi T, Fujita N, Yamashita H. Assessing myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma with dynamic MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1994;18:77–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Seki H, Kimura M, Sakai K. Myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma: assessment with dynamic MR and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. Clin Radiol. 1997;52:18–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sironi S, Colombo E, Villa G, Taccagni G, Belloni C, Garancini P, et al. Myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: assessment with plain and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 1992;185:207–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Matsushita H, Kodama S, Kase H, Kurata H, Tanaka K. Usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging in the determination of cervical involvement in endometrial cancer. Nippon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi. 1996;48:821–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ascher SM, Reinhold C. Imaging of cancer of the endometrium. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002;40:563–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kinkel K, Ariche M, Tardivon AA, Spatz A, Castaigne D, Lhomme C, et al. Differentiation between recurrent tumor and benign conditions after treatment of gynecologic pelvic carcinoma: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging. Radiology. 1997;204:55–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bohn-Verez M. Transvaginal sonography in pelvic inflammatory disease. In: Fleischer AC, Javitt MC, Jeffrey Jr RB, Jones III HW, editors. Clinical gynecologic imaging. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. p. 236–44.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nalaboff KM, Pellerito JS, Ben-Levi E. Imaging the endometrium: disease and normal variants. RadioGraphics. 2001;21:1409–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG Committee opinion no. 266, January 2002: placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:169–70.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Miller DA, Chollet JA, Goodwin TM. Clinical risk factors for placenta previa-placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:210–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Usta IM, Hobeika EM, Musa AA, Gabriel GE, Nassar AH. Placenta previa-accreta: risk factors and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1045–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Comstock CH. Antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:89–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Twickler DM, Lucas MJ, Balis AB, et al. Color flow mapping for myometrial invasion in women with a prior cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Med. 2000;9:330–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    McGahan JP, Phillips HE, Reid MH. The anechoic retroplacental area: a pitfall in diagnosis of placental- endometrial abnormalities during pregnancy. Radiology. 1980;134:475–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lax A, Prince MR, Mennitt KW, Schwebach JR, Budorick NE. The value of specific MRI features in the evaluation of suspected placental invasion. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:87–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wolman I, Gordon D, Yaron Y, Kupferminc M, Lessing JB, Jaffa AJ. Transvaginal sonohysterography for the evaluation and treatment of retained products of conception. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2000;50:73–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Noonan JB, Coakley FV, Qayyum A, Yeh BM, Wu L, Chan LM. MR imaging of retained products of conception. AJR. 2003;181:435–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Neish AS, Frates MC, Tempany MC. Placenta percreta post evacuation: an unusual uterine mass on MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1995;19:824–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Amoh Y, Watanabe Y, Saga T, et al. Retained placenta accreta: MRI and pathologic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1995;19:827–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Shapter AP, McLellan R. Gestational trophoblastic disease. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2001;28:805–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hricak H, Demas BE, Braga CH, Fisher MR, Winkler ML. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasm of the uterus: MR assessment. Radiology. 1986;161:11–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Preidler KW, Luschin G, Tamussino K, Szolar DM, Stiskal M, Ebner F. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with gestational trophoblastic disease. Invest Radiol. 1996;31:492–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Goldstein SR. Postmenopausal endometrial fluid collections revisited: look at the doughnut rather than the hole. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:738–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Schlesinger C, Seiryu K, Ascher SM, Kendell M, Lage JM, Silverberg SG. Endometrial polyps: a comparison study of patients receiving tamoxifen with two control groups. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998;17:302–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ismail SM. Pathology of endometrium treated with tamoxifen. J Clin Pathol. 1994;47:827.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Corley D, Rowe J, Curtis MT, Hogan WM, Noumoff JS, Livolsi VA. Postmenopausal bleeding from unusual endometrial polyps in women on chronic tamoxifen therapy. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:111–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Magriples U, Naftolin F, Schartz PE, Carcangiu ML. High-grade endometrial carcinoma in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:485–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    McGonigle KF, Shaw SL, Vasilev SA, Odom-Maryon T, Roy S, Simpson JF. Abnormalities detected on transvaginal ultrasonography in tamoxifen-treated postmenopausal breast cancer patients may represent endometrial cystic atrophy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:1145–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Goldstein SR. Unusual ultrasonic appearance of the uterus in patients receiving tamoxifen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:​447–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Achiron R, Lipitz S, Sivan E, Goldenberg M, Mashiach S. Sonohysterography for ultrasonographic evaluation of tamoxifen-associated cystic thickened endometrium. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:685.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Siegler A, Camilien L. Adenomyosis. J Reprod Med. 1994;39:​841–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Wang L. Imaging features of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:337–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Siedler D, Laing FC, Jeffrey Jr RB, Wing VW. Uterine adenomyosis: a difficult sonographic diagnosis. J Ultrasound Med. 1987;6:​345–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Ascher SM, Arnold LL, Patt RH, Schrueffer JJ, Bagley SS, Semelka RC, et al. Adenomyosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging and transvaginal sonography. Radiology. 1994;190:803–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, Mehio A, Atri M, Zakarian R, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;199:​151–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, Wang L, Atri M, Siegelman ES, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1999;19:S147–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Tamai K, Koyama T, Umeoka S, Saga T, Fujii S, Togashi K. Spectrum of MR features in adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:583–602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mitsumori A, Morimoto M, Matsubara S, Yamamoto M, Akamatsu N, Hiraki Y. MR appearance of adenomatoid tumor of the uterus. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24:610–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kumar NB, Hart WR. Metastases to the uterine corpus from extragenital cancers: a clinicopathologic study of 63 cases. Cancer. 1982;50:2163–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Metser U, Haider MA, Khalili K, Boerner S. MR imaging findings and patterns of spread in secondary tumor involvement of the uterine body and cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:765–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Prayson RA, Hart WR. Pathologic considerations of uterine smooth muscle tumors. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1995;22:637–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Lurie S, Piper I, Woliovitch I, Glezerman M. Age-related prevalence of sonographically confirmed uterine myomas. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;25:42–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hashimoto K, Azuma C, Kamiura S, Kimura T, Nobunaga T, Kanai T, et al. Clonal determination of uterine leiomyomas by analyzing differential inactivation of the X-chromosome-linked phosphoglycerokinase gene. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1995;40:204–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Siegelman ES, Outwater EK, Banner MP, Ramchandani P, Anderson TL, Schnall MD. High-resolution MR imaging of the vagina. Radiographics. 1997;17:1183–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hricak H, Tscholakoff D, Heinrichs L, Fisher MR, Dooms GC, Reinhold C, et al. Uterine leiomyomas: correlation of MR, histopathologic findings, and symptoms. Radiology. 1986;158:385–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Dudiak CM, Turner DA, Patel SK, Archie JT, Silver B, Norusis M. Uterine leiomyomas in the infertile patient: preoperative localization with MR imaging versus US and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. 1988;167:627.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Hamlin DJ, Pettersson H, Fitzsimmons J, Morgan LS. MR imaging of uterine leiomyomas and their complications. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1985;9:902–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Riccio TJ, Adams HG, Munzing DE, Mattrey RF. Magnetic resonance imaging as an adjunct to sonography in the evaluation of the female pelvis. Magn Reson Imaging. 1990;8:699–704.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Mittl Jr RL, Yeh IT, Kressel HY. High-signal-intensity rim surrounding uterine leiomyomas on MR images: pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1991;180:81–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Woodruff JD, Parmley TI. Atlas of gynecologic pathology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1988.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Rosai J. Ackerman’s surgical pathology. 8th ed. St Louis: Mosby–Year Book; 1996. p. 1429–33.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Okizuka H, Sugimura K, Takemori M, Obayashi C, Kitao M, Ishida T. MR detection of degenerating uterine leiomyomas. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1993;17:760–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Dellacha A, Di Marco A, Foglia G, Fulcheri E. Lipoleiomyoma of the uterus. Pathologica. 1997;89:737–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Arkun R, Memis A, Akalin T, Ustun EE, Sabah D, Kandiloglu G. Liposarcoma of soft tissue: MRI findings with pathologic correlation. Skeletal Radiol. 1997;26:167–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Danforth DN, Scott JR. Obstetrics and gynecology. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1986.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Togashi K, Noma S, Ozasa H. CT and MR demonstration of nabothian cysts mimicking a cystic adnexal mass. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1987;11:1091–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Kurman RJ, Norris HJ, Wilkinson E. Tumors of the cervix. Atlas of tumor pathology: tumors of the cervix, vagina, and vulva. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1992.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Doi T, Yamashita Y, Yasunaga T, et al. Adenoma malignum: MR imaging and pathologic study. Radiology. 1997;204:39–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Golan A, Ber A, Wolman I, David MP. Cervical polyp: evaluation of current treatment. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1994;37:56–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    McCarthy S, Hricak H. The uterus and vagina. In: Higgins CB, Hricak H, Helms CA, editors. Magnetic resonance imaging of the body. 3rd ed. New York: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. p. 761–814.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Togashi K, Morikawa K, Kataoka ML, Konishi J. Cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8:391–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Swift PS. Carcinoma of the uterine cervix. In: Liebel SA, Phillips TL, editors. Clinical radiation oncology. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1998. p. 799–841.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Sironi S, Belloni C, Taccagni GL, DelMaschio A. Carcinoma of the cervix: value of MR imaging in detecting parametrial involvement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156:753–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Togashi K, Nishimura K, Sagoh T, Minami S, Noma S, Fujisawa I, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: staging with MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;171:245–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Sotto LSJ, Graham JB, Pickren JW. Postmortem findings in cancer of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1960;80:791–4.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Badib AO, Kurohara SS, Webster JH, Pickren JW. Metastasis to organs in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cancer. 1968;21:434–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Drescher CW, Hopkins MP, Roberts JA. Comparison of the pattern of metastatic spread of squamous cell cancer and adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;33:340–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Henriksen E. The lymphatic spread of carcinoma of the cervix and of the body of the uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1949;58:​924–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Henriksen E. The dispersion of cancer of the cervix. Radiology. 1950;54:812–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Kaminski PF, Norris HJ. Minimal deviation carcinoma (adenoma malignum) of the cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1983;2:141–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Fu YS, Reagan JW, Hsiu JG, Storaalsi JP, Wentz WB. Adenocarcinoma and mixed carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cancer. 1982;49:2560.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Choi CG, Kim SH, Kim JS, Chi JG, Song ES, Han MC. Adenoma malignum of uterine cervix in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: CT and US features. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1993;17:819–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Kaminski PF, Norris HJ. Coexistence of ovarian neoplasms and endocervical adenocarcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;64:553–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Yamashita Y, Takahashi M, Katabuchi H, Fukumatsu Y, Miyazaki K, Okamura H. Adenoma malignum: MR appearances mimicking nabothian cysts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:649–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Sykes AJ, Shanks JH, Davidson SE. Small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinicopathological review. Int J Oncol. 1999;14:381–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Wang PH, Liu YC, Lai CR, et al. Small cell carcinoma of the cervix: analysis of clinical and pathological findings. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1998;25:189.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Yang DH, Kim JK, Kim KW, Bae SJ, Kim KH, Cho KS. MRI of small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix with pathologic correlation. AJR. 2004;182(5):1255–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Albores-Saavedra J, Larraza O, Poucell S, Rodriguez-Martinez HA. Carcinoid of the uterine cervix: additional observation on a new tumor entity. Cancer. 1976;38:2328–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Okamoto Y, Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Yoshikawa H, Itai Y. MR imaging of the uterine cervix: imaging – pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2003;23:425–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Kristiansen SB, Anderson R, Cohen DM. Primary malignant melanoma of the cervix and review of literature. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;47:398–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Miyagi Y, Yamada S, Miyagi Y, et al. Malignant melanoma of uterine cervix. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1997;23:511–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Moon WK, Kim SH, Han MC. MR findings of malignant melanoma of the vagina. Clin Radiol. 1993;48:326–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Aozasa K, Saeli K, Ohsawa M, Horiuchi K, Mishima K, Tsujimoto M. Malignant lymphoma of the uterus: report of seven cases with immunohistochemical study. Cancer. 1993;72:1959–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Kim YS, Koh BH, Cho OK, Rhim HC. MR imaging of primary uterine lymphoma. Abdom Imaging. 1997;22:441–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karthik Ganesan
    • 1
  • Ajaykumar C. Morani
    • 2
  • Leonardo P. Marcal
    • 3
  • Priya R. Bhosale
    • 3
  • Khaled M. Elsayes
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of 3T F-MRISRL Diagnostics – Jankharia ImagingMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations