Skip to main content
Book cover

Gynecological Oncology pp 221–234Cite as

Radiology Investigations and Interventions in Gynaeoncology

  • 172 Accesses

Abstract

Radiological investigations are essential in evaluating gynaecological malignancies at every stage of management, from screening to post-treatment surveillance, and their role is highlighted in the recent version of FIGO staging system. Multiple imaging modalities like ultrasound, CT, MRI and FDG PET CT are available for assessing gynaecological malignancies which complement each other, and the choice of modality depends on the type and stage of the cancer and more importantly, the resources available within a practice setting. This chapter will summarise the techniques, protocols, and applications of the imaging modalities utilised in gynaecological oncology, provide recommended imaging pathways for the main cancer sites, and briefly discuss the role of image guided interventions.

Keywords

  • CT
  • MRI
  • Ultrasound
  • FDG PET CT
  • Radiology
  • Gynaecological malignancy
  • Gynaeoncology

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-94110-9_18
  • Chapter length: 14 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-94110-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 18.1
Fig. 18.2
Fig. 18.3
Fig. 18.4

References

  1. Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas J. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97(10):922–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1471-0528.1990.TB02448.X.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne T, Collins W, Verrelst H, Vergote I. 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. https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1469-0705.2000.00287.X.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Timmerman D, Testa A, Bourne T, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(6):681–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/UOG.5365.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa A, et al. Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):424–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJOG.2016.01.007.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Timmerman D, Testa A, Bourne T, et al. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8794–801. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.01.7632.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van CB, Van HK, 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. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.G5920.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Strachowski LM, et al. O-RADS US risk stratification and management system: a consensus guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. Radiology. 2019;294(1):168–85. https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.2019191150.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Andreotti RF, Timmerman D, Benacerraf BR, et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting lexicon for ultrasound: a white paper of the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(10):1415–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACR.2018.07.004.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Meys E, Jeelof L, Achten N, et al. Estimating risk of malignancy in adnexal masses: external validation of the ADNEX model and comparison with other frequently used ultrasound methods. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(6):784–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/UOG.17225.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/UOG.12323.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Meys EMJ, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RFPM, et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2016;58:17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJCA.2016.01.007.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaijser J, Sayasneh A, Van Hoorde K, et al. Presurgical diagnosis of adnexal tumours using mathematical models and scoring systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):449–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/HUMUPD/DMT059.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nalaboff KM, Pellerito JS, Ben-Levi E. Imaging the endometrium: disease and normal variants. Radiographics. 2001;21(6):1409–24. https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOGRAPHICS216.g01nv211409.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fong K, Kung R, Lytwyn A, et al. Endometrial evaluation with transvaginal US and hysterosonography in asymptomatic postmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving tamoxifen. Radiology. 2001;220(3):765–73. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol2203010011.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sahdev A. Imaging the endometrium in postmenopausal bleeding. BMJ. 2007;334(7594):635–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.39126.628924.BE.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Williams PL, Laifer-Narin SL, Ragavendra N. US of abnormal uterine bleeding. RadioGraphics. 2003;23(3):703–18. https://doi.org/10.1148/RG233025150.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2078. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Patient Safety—Radiation Dose in X-Ray and CT Exams. Accessed May 5, 2021. https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info/safety-xray

  19. DeSouza N, Rockall A, Freeman S. Functional MR imaging in gynecologic cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2016;24(1):205–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2015.08.008.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sohaib SAA, Reznek RH. MR imaging in ovarian cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2007;7(Special issue A):S119. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2007.9046.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Nougaret S, Tirumani SH, Addley H, Pandey H, Sala E, Reinhold C. Pearls and pitfalls in MRI of gynecologic malignancy with diffusion-weighted technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):261–76. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9713.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rockall AG. Diffusion weighted MRI in ovarian cancer. Curr Opin Oncol. 2014;26(5):529–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0000000000000112.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Winfield JM, Wakefield JC, Dolling D, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient as a response marker. Radiology. 2019;293(2):374–83. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol2019190545.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Iyer VR, Lee SI. MRI, CT, and PET/CT for ovarian cancer detection and adnexal lesion characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(2):311–21. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3522.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. ISRCTN—ISRCTN51246892: MR in ovarian cancer. Accessed Oct 10, 2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN51246892

  26. Forstner R, Meissnitzer MW, Schlattau A, Spencer JA. MRI in ovarian cancer. Imaging Med. 2012;4(1):59–75. https://doi.org/10.2217/IIM.11.69.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  27. McDermott S, Oei TN, Iyer VR, Lee SI. MR imaging of malignancies arising in endometriomas and extraovarian endometriosis. Radiographics. 2012;32(3):845–63. https://doi.org/10.1148/RG.323115736.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Reinhold C, Rockall A, Sadowski EA, et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting lexicon for MRI: a white paper of the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data Systems MRI Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18(5):713–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACR.2020.12.022.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Thomassin-Naggara I, Poncelet E, Jalaguier-Coudray A, et al. Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) score for risk stratification of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1919896. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2019.19896.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Sheu MH, Chang CY, Wang JH, Yen MS. MR staging of clinical stage I and IIa cervical carcinoma: a reappraisal of efficacy and pitfalls. Eur J Radiol. 2001;38(3):225–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(00)00278-3.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lakhani A, Khan SR, Bharwani N, et al. FDG PET/CT pitfalls in gynecologic and genitourinary oncologic imaging. Radiographics. 2017;37(2):577–94. https://doi.org/10.1148/RG.2017160059.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Narayanan P, Sahdev A. The role of 18F-FDG PET CT in common gynaecological malignancies. Br J Radiol. 2017;90(1079):20170283. https://doi.org/10.1259/BJR.20170283.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Field K, Ryan MJ, Saadeh FA, et al. Selective arterial embolisation for intractable vaginal haemorrhage in genital tract malignancies. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2016;37(5):736–40. https://doi.org/10.12892/EJGO3160.20L6.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Meyer-Wilmes P, Powerski M, Fischbach F, Omari J, Damm R, Pech M. Transarterial embolisation for the treatment of acute gynecological cancer bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;300(5):1391–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00404-019-05316-4.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dewdney S, Benn T, Rimel B, et al. Inferior vena cava filter placement in the gynecologic oncology patient: a 15-year institutional experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(2):344–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.YGYNO.2011.01.004.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Babu SB, Khan AM, Coates PJ. Three-year experience of prophylactic placement of inferior vena cava filters in women with gynecological cancer. Int J Gen Med. 2013;6:671. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S44191.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Parikh JH, Barton DPJ, Ind TEJ, Sohaib SA. MR imaging features of vaginal malignancies. Radiographics. 2008;28(1):49–63. https://doi.org/10.1148/RG.281075065.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Viswanathan C, Kirschner K, Truong M, Balachandran A, Devine C, Bhosale P. Multimodality imaging of vulvar cancer: staging, therapeutic response, and complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1387–400. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9714.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jahan N, Narayanan P, Rockall A. Magnetic resonance lymphography in gynaecological malignancies. Cancer Imaging. 2010;10(1):85. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2010.0006.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM, et al. Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(12):749–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Aerts H, Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4006. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCOMMS5006.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Martin-Gonzalez P, Crispin-Ortuzar M, Rundo L, et al. Integrative radiogenomics for virtual biopsy and treatment monitoring in ovarian cancer. Insights Imaging. 2020;11(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13244-020-00895-2.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of North Durham, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, Durham, UK

    Lohith Ambadipudi

Authors
  1. Lohith Ambadipudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lohith Ambadipudi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Pan Birmingham Gynaecology Cancer Centre, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK

    Kavita Singh

  2. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University College of Medical Sciences & Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, India

    Bindiya Gupta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ambadipudi, L. (2022). Radiology Investigations and Interventions in Gynaeoncology. In: Singh, K., Gupta, B. (eds) Gynecological Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94110-9_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94110-9_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94109-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94110-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)