FDG-PET is already recommended to evaluate lymph node extension and was proven superior to MRI for detection of lombo-aortic lymph node extension, which is a major prognostic factor.
Given its excellent soft-tissue contrast, MRI plays an important role at diagnosis in the delineation of cervical lesions, and possible vaginal, parametrial, rectal or bladder invasion.
Therefore, PET and MRI are complementary for cervical cancer local, loco-regional and distant staging and re-staging.
Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cervical Cancer Supine Position Axial Plane Cervical Lesion
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Choi HJ 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(4):914–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt MJ et al (2001) Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology 218(3):776–782PubMedGoogle Scholar
Schwarz JK et al (2009) The role of 18F-FDG PET in assessing therapy response in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):64S–73SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hricak H et al (2007) Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation - ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Radiology 245(2):491–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahdev A et al (2007) The performance of magnetic resonance imaging in early cervical carcinoma: a long-term experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer 17(3):629–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinkel K et al (1997) Differentiation between recurrent tumor and benign conditions after treatment of gynecologic pelvic carcinoma: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging. Radiology 204(1):55–63PubMedGoogle Scholar