Uterine cervical carcinoma: Preoperative staging with 3.0-T MR imaging - Comparison with 1.5-T MR imaging

Radiology

Volumn 251, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 96-104

  Hori, Masatoshi ^a   Kim, Tonsok ^a   Murakami, Takamichi ^b   Imaoka, Izumi ^b   Onishi, Hiromitsu ^a   Tomoda, Kaname ^a   Tsutsui, Tateki ^a   Enomoto, Takayuki ^a   Kimura, Tadashi ^a   Nakamura, Hironobu ^a  

^a OSAKA UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b KINKI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; CANCER INVASION; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PARAMETER; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 64949130672     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2511081265     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2008. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society, 2008.
2. Miller AB, Lindsay J, Hill GB. Mortality from cancer of the uterus in Canada and its relationship to screening for cancer of the cervix. Int J Cancer 1976;17(5):602-612.
3. Devesa SS, Young JL Jr, Brinton LA, Fraumeni JF Jr. Recent trends in cervix uteri cancer. Cancer 1989;64(10):2184-2190. (Pubitemid 19280423)
4. Benedet JL, Anderson GH, Matisic JP. A comprehensive program for cervical cancer detection and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166(4):1254-1259.
5. Koyama T, Tamai K, Togashi K. Staging of carcinoma of the uterine cervix and endometrium. Eur Radiol 2007;17(8):2009-2019. (Pubitemid 47097458)
6. Van Nagell JR Jr, Roddick JW Jr, Lowin DM. The staging of cervical cancer: inevitable discrepancies between clinical staging and pathologic findinges. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1971;110(7):973-978.
7. Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, Chang YC, Winkler ML, Stern JL. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 1988;166(3):623-631. (Pubitemid 18058914)
8. Togashi K, Nishimura K, Itoh K, et al. Uterine cervical cancer: assessment with high-field MR imaging. Radiology 1986;160(2):431-435.
9. Togashi K, Nishimura K, Sagoh T, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: staging with MR imaging. Radiology 1989;171(1):245-251.
10. Kim SH, Choi BI, Lee HP, et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR findings. Radiology 1990;175(1):45-51.
11. Hricak H, Powell CB, Yu KK, et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: role of MR imaging in pretreatment work-up - cost minimization and diagnostic efficacy analysis. Radiology 1996;198(2):403-409.
12. Bipat S, Glas AS, van der Velden J, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91(1):59-66. (Pubitemid 37188594)
13. Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(36):9329-9337.
14. Merkle EM, Dale BM. Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(6):1524-1532. (Pubitemid 46112514)
15. Kuhl CK, Traber F, Schild HH. Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. I. Technical considerations and clinical applications. Radiology 2008;246(3):675-696.
16. Morakkabati-Spitz N, Gieseke J, Kuhl C, et al. 3.0-T high-field magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: preliminary experiences. Eur Radiol 2005;15(4):639-644.
17. Morakkabati-Spitz N, Schild HH, Kuhl CK, et al. Female pelvis: MR imaging at 3.0 T with sensitivity encoding and flip-angle sweep technique. Radiology 2006;241(2):538-545.
18. Morakkabati-Spitz N, Gieseke J, Kuhl C, et al. MRI of the pelvis at 3 T: very high spatial resolution with sensitivity encoding and flip-angle sweep technique in clinically acceptable scan time. Eur Radiol 2006;16(3):634-641.
19. Kataoka M, Kido A, Koyama T, et al. MRI of the female pelvis at 3T compared to 1.5T: evaluation on high-resolution T2-weighted and HASTE images. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25(3):527-534.
20. Torricelli P, Ferraresi S, Fiocchi F, et al. 3-T MRI in the preoperative evaluation of depth of myometrial infiltration in endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(2):489-495.
21. Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1974;44(2):265-272.
22. Schmitt M, Feiweier T, Horger W, et al. Improved uniformity of RF-distribution in clinical whole body-imaging at 3T by means of dielectric pads [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the 12th Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2004; 197.
23. Yang QX, Mao W, Wang J, et al. Manipulation of image intensity distribution at 7.0 T: passive RF shimming and focusing with dielectric materials. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24(1):197-202.
24. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-174. (Pubitemid 8054849)
25. Gibbs GF, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, Riederer SJ, Brown RD Jr. Improved image quality of intracranial aneurysms: 3.0-T versus 1.5-T time-of-flight MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25(1):84-87. (Pubitemid 38129484)
26. Kuhl CK, Textor J, Gieseke J, et al. Acute and subacute ischemic stroke at high-field-strength (3.0-T) diffusion-weighted MR imaging: intraindividual comparative study. Radiology 2005;234(2):509-516.
27. Norris DG. High field human imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;18(5):519-529. (Pubitemid 37339796)
28. Schick F. Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol 2005;15(5):946-959. (Pubitemid 41166727)
29. Edelman RR, Salanitri G, Brand R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas at 3.0 tesla: qualitative and quantitative comparison with 1.5 tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41(2):175-180.
30. Halpern EF, Gazelle GS. Probability in radiology. Radiology 2003;226(1):12-15. (Pubitemid 36163901)
31. Bottomley PA, Foster TH, Argersinger RE, Pfeifer LM. A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1-100 MHz: dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age. Med Phys 1984;11(4):425-448. (Pubitemid 14057394)
32. de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004;230(3):652-659. (Pubitemid 38252858)
33. Peppercorn PD, Jeyarajah AR, Woolas R, et al. Role of MR imaging in the selection of patients with early cervical carcinoma for fertility-preserving surgery: initial experience. Radiology 1999;212(2):395-399. (Pubitemid 29356559)
34. Yamashita Y, Takahashi M, Sawada T, Miyazaki K, Okamura H. Carcinoma of the cervix: dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1992;182(3):643-648.
35. Fujiwara K, Yoden E, Asakawa T, et al. Negative MRI findings with invasive cervical biopsy may indicate stage IA cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2000;79(3):451-456.
36. Scheidler J, Heuck AF, Steinborn M, Kimmig R, Reiser MF. Parametrial invasion in cervical carcinoma: evaluation of detection at MR imaging with fat suppression. Radiology 1998;206(1):125-129. (Pubitemid 28062995)