MR imaging of the female pelvis

Radiologic Clinics of North America

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 179-192

  Fielding, Julia R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HOSPITALS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DISABILITY; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ANATOMY; GYNECOLOGIC CANCER; HUMAN; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; INFERTILITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PELVIS; PELVIS FLOOR; PELVIS PAIN SYNDROME; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

FEMALE; FETAL DISEASES; GENITAL DISEASES, FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS;

EID: 0037285048     PISSN: 00338389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0033-8389(02)00063-5     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Seki H, Takano T, Sakai K, et al. Value of dynamic MR imaging in assessing endometrial carcinoma involvement of the cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 171-6.
2. Scheidler J, Heuck AF, Steinborn M, et al. Parametrial invasion in cervical carcinoma: evaluation of detection at MR imaging with fat suppression. Radiology 1998; 206:125-9.
3. Scoutt LM, Flynn SD, Luthringer DJ, et al. Junctional zone of the uterus: correlation of MR imaging and histologic examination of hysterectomy specimens. Radiology 1991;179:403-7.
4. Sorensen SS. Estimated prevalence of mullerian anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998;67: 441-5.
5. Van Gils APG, Tham RTOTA, Falke THM, Peters AAW. Abnormalities of the uterus and cervix after diethylstilbestrol exposure: correlation of findings on MR and hysterosalpingography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;153:1235-8.
6. Kaufman RH, Noller K, Adam E, et al. Upper genital tract abnormalities and pregnancy outcome in diethylstilbestrol exposed progeny. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;148:973-84.
7. Creasman WT. Disorders of the uterine corpus. In: Scoutt JR, DiSaia PJ, Hammand CCB, Spellacy WN, editors. Danforth's obstetrics and gynecology. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1994. p. 925-55.
8. Murase E, Siegelman ES, Outwater EK, et al. Uterine leiomyomas: histopathologic features, MR imaging findings, differential diagnosis, and treatment. Radiographics 1999;19:1179-97.
9. Dudiak CM, Turner DA, Patel DK, et al. Uterine leiomyomas in the infertile patient: preoperative localization with MR imaging versus US and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 1988;167:627-60.
10. Yamashita Y, Torashima M, Takahashi M, et al. Hyperintense uterine leiomyoma at T2-weighted MR imaging and clinical implications. Radiology 1993;189: 721-5.
11. Burn PR, McCall JM, Chinn RJ, et al. Uterine fibroleiomyoma: MR imaging appearances before and after embolization of uterine arteries. Radiology 2000; 214:729-34.
12. Reinhold C, Mostafa A, Mehio A, et al. Diffuse uterine adenomyosis: morphologic criteria and diagnostic accuracy of endovaginal sonography. Radiology 1995; 197:609-14.
13. Atri M, Reinhold C, Mehio A, et al. Adenomyosis: US features with histologic correlation in an in vitro study. Radiology 2000;215:783-90.
14. Ascher SM, Arnold LL, Patt RH, et al. Adenomyosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging and transvaginal sonography. Radiology 1994;190:803-6.
15. Mark AS, Hricak H, Heinrichs LW, et al. Adenomyosis and leiomyoma: differential diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 1987;163:527-9.
16. Siskin GP, Tublin ME, Stainken BF, et al. Uterine artery embolization for the treatment of adenomyosis: clinical response and evaluation with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:297-302.
17. Gougoutas CA, Siegelman ES, Hunt J, et al. Pelvic endometriosis: various manifestations and MR imaging findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:353-8.
18. Outwater E, Schiebler ML, Owen RS, et al. Characterization of hemorrhagic adnexal lesions with MR imaging: blinded reader study. Radiology 1993;186:489-94.
19. Yamashita Y, Torashima M, Hatanaka Y, et al. Adnexal masses: accuracy of characterization with transvaginal US and precontrast and postcontrast MR imaging. Radiology 1995;194:557-65.
20. Kimura I, Togashi K, Kawakami S, et al. Polycystic ovaries: implications of diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 1996;201:549-52.
21. Yamashita Y, Hatanaka Y, Torashima M, et al. Mature cystic teratomas of the ovary without fat in the cystic cavity: MR features in 12 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163:613-6.
22. Tukeva TA, Aronen HJ, Karjalainen PT, et al. MR imaging in pelvic inflammatory disease: comparison with laparoscopy and US. Radiology 1999;210:209-16.
23. Hardesty LA, Sumkin JH, Nath ME, et al. Use of preoperative MR imaging in the management of endometrial carcinoma: cost analysis. Radiology 2000;215: 45-9.
24. Kinkel K, Kagi Y, Yu K, et al. Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology 1999;212:711-8.
25. Ahlmedin J, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M. Cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:23-45.
26. Hawighorst H, Knapstein PG, Weikel W, et al. Cervical carcinoma: comparison of standard and pharmacokinetic MR imaging. Radiology 1996;201:531-9.
27. Levine D, Gosink BB, Johnson LA. Change in endometrial thickness in postmenopausal women undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Radiology 1995; 197:603-8.
28. Hann LE, Giess CS, Bach AM, et al. Endometrial thickness in tamoxifen-treated patients: correlation with clinical and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:657-61.
29. Ascher SM, Johnson JC, Barnes WA, et al. MR imaging appearance of the uterus in postmenopausal women receiving tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer: histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1996;200: 105-10.
30. Hricak H, Rubinstein LV, Gherman GM, et al. MR imaging evaluation of endometrial carcinoma: results of an NCI cooperative Study. Radiology 1991;179: 829-32.
31. Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, et al. Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63:825-32.
32. Frei KA, Kinkel K, Bonel HM, et al. 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.
33. Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CM, et al. Diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer: comparative values of Doppler and conventional US, CT, and MR imaging correlated with surgery and histopathologic analysis-report of the radiology diagnostic oncology group. Radiology 1999;212:19-27.
34. Low RN, Saleh F, Song SY, et al. Treated ovarian cancer: comparison of MR imaging with serum CA-125 level and physical examination: a longitudinal study. Radiology 1999;211:519-28.
35. Hoyte L, Schierlitz L, Zou K, et al. Two- and 3-dimensional MRI comparison of levator ani structure, volume, and integrity in women with stress incontinence and prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:11-9.
36. Fielding JR, Griffiths DJ, Versi E, et al. MR imaging of pelvic floor continence mechanisms in the supine and sitting positions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171: 1607-10.
37. Consensus Conference. Magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 1998;259:2132-8.
38. Shellock FG, Litwer CA, Kanal E. Magnetic resonance imaging: bioeffects, safety, and patient management. Magn Reson Med 1992;4:21-63.
39. Kier B, McCarthy SM, Scoutt LM, et al, Pelvic masses in pregnancy: MR imaging. Radiology 1990;176:709-13.
40. Twickler DM, Setiawan AT, Evans RS, et al. Imaging of puerperal septic thrombophlebitis: prospective comparison of MR imaging, CT, and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1039-43.
41. Levine D, Barnes PD, Edelman RR. Obstetric MR imaging. Radiology 1999;211:609-17.
42. Kang S, Turner DA, Foster GS, Rapoport MI, et al. Adenomyosis: specificity of 5mm as the maximum normal uterine junctional zone thickness in MR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:1145-50.