US Findings in Gynecologic Cancer

  • Charis I. Bourgioti
  • Aristeidis Antoniou


>Sonography (Ultrasound-US) is considered as a first-line imaging modality for the evaluation of female pelvis. It has a significant role in the management of patients with vaginal bleeding, especially in postmenopausal population and for detection of endometrial cancer. Also, it is useful in identifying and characterizing ovarian lesions in up to 75% of the cases. However, sonography exhibits considerable limitations in evaluating uterine cervix or localizing quite large pelvic masses; furthermore, its role in staging and follow up of gynecologic malignancies is still restricted. The development of more sophisticated techniques, like contrast-enhanced or three dimensional US, may improve diagnostic efficacy in the future.The aim of this chapter is to describe common sonographic features of uterine and ovarian malignancies and to review the diagnostic efficacy of sonography in such cases.

Ultrasonography (US) is considered as the initial imaging method for the evaluation of the female pelvis. It is a noninvasive, easily repeatable, cheap, and widely available imaging modality, which provides a quick overview of the female reproductive system. Since it lacks ionization, it is a safe method for the evaluation of young females and pregnant patients (Fielding et al. Gynecologic imaging. Expert radiology series. Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, 2011; Fischerova, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:246–266, 2011).

Bimanual clinical examination has low sensitivity in recognizing uterine and ovarian tumors (Padilla et al., Obstet Gynecol 96:593–598, 2000). On the contrary, US can easily detect and characterize pelvic masses of uterine or adnexal origin, predicting also their benign or malignant nature.

US may be susceptible to pitfalls since it is dependent on the operator’s experience, equipment, and patient’s body mass index. During the last decades, there was a significant improvement in technical quality parameters; therefore, US can be used as a reliable tool for the depiction and classification of most gynecological tumors, for follow-up examination, and even for the detection of recurrence in oncologic patients, especially when carried out by a sonographer dedicated in gynecologic oncology (Fischerova, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:246–266, 2011).

The aim of this chapter is to describe typical sonographic features of common uterine and ovarian malignancies in pre- and postmenopausal population and to review the diagnostic efficacy of sonography in such cases.


Ultrasonography Endometrial cancer Cervical cancer Uterine sarcoma Ovarian cancer 


  1. 1.
    Fielding J, Brown D, Thurmond A (2011) Gynecologic imaging. Expert radiology series. Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischerova D (2011) Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecological tumors: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:246–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Derchi L, Serafini G, Gandolfo N et al (2001) Ultrasound in gynecology. Eur Radiol 11:2137–2155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Timmermans A, Opmeer BC, Khan KS, Bachmann LM, Epstein E, Clark TJ et al (2010) Endometrial thickness measurement for detecting endometria cancer in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 116(1):160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice (2006) ACOG committee opinion no. 336: tamoxifen and uterine cancer. Obstet Gynecol 107(6):1475–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu ZZ, Jiang YX, Qing D et al (2011) Imaging in endometrial carcinoma using contrast-enhanced sonography. J Ultrasound Med 30(11):1519–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rumack C, Wilson S, Chaborneau JW (1998) Diagnostic ultrasound, vol 1, 2nd edn. Mosby Inc., St. Louis, MOGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loubeyre P, Navarria I, Undurraga M et al (2012) Is imaging relevant for treatment choice in early stage cervical uterine cancer? Surg Oncol 21:e1–e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCluggage WG, Fisher C, & Hirschowitz LDL, On behalf of the Working Group for Cancer Services of The Royal College of Pathologists (2014) Dataset for histological reporting of uterine sarcomas.
  10. 10.
    Hricak H (2007) Diagnostic imaging. Gynecology, 1st edn. Amirsys Inc., Salt Lake City, UTGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Initial Evaluation and Referral Guidelines for Management of Pelvic/Ovarian Masses (2009) JOGC JULY JUILLET no. 230Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T et al (2008) Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstetr Gynecol 31(6):681–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Togashi K (2003) Ovarian cancer: the clinical role of US, CT, and MRI. Eur Radiol 13:L87–L104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fleischer A, Lyshchik A, Hirari M et al (2012) Early detection of ovarian cancer and contrast-enhanced transvaginal sonography: recent advances and potential improvements. J Oncol 302858:11Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marret H, Sauget S, Giraudeau B et al (2004) Contrast-enhanced sonography helps in discrimination of benign from malignant adnexal masses. JUM 23(12):1629–1639Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A et al (2011) Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA 305(22):2295–2303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Nagel JR, Pavlik EJ (2012) Ovarian cancer screening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 55(1):43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG et al (2000) Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities-report from the radiological diagnostic oncology group. Radiology 215:761–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CM et al (1999) Diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer: comparative values of Doppler and conventional US, CT, and MR imaging correlated with surgery and histopathologic analysis – report from the radiological diagnostic oncology group. Radiology 212:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fehm T, Heller F, Kramer S et al (2005) Evaluation of CA125, physical and radiological findings in follow up of ovarian cancer patients. Anticancer Res 25:1551–1554PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charis I. Bourgioti
    • 1
  • Aristeidis Antoniou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, School of MedicineAretaieion Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations