Role of magnetic resonance imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient at 3T in distinguishing between Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix and endometrium

Chang Gung Medical Journal

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 93-100

  Lin, Yu Ching ^a   Lin, Gigin ^a   Chen, Yu Ruei ^a   Yen, Tzu Chen ^b   Wang, Chun Chieh ^b   Ng, Koon Kwan ^a  

^a Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention ^*  (Taiwan)

^b CHANG GUNG UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma; Cervical cancer; Diffusion weighted imaging; Endometrial cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER MORPHOLOGY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE SEVERITY; ENDOMETRIUM CARCINOMA; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; TUMOR VOLUME; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; ROC CURVE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 79952828658     PISSN: 20720939     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Cronj HS. Screening for cervical cancer in developing countries. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2004; 84: 101-8.
2. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Cervical Cancers. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical Cancer. Available from http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp?button=I+Agree. Accessed August 11, 2008.
3. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uterine Cancers. Available from http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp?button=I+Agree. Accessed August 11, 2008.
4. Haider MA, Patlas M, Jhaveri K, Chapman W, Fyles A, Rosen B, Haider MA. Adenocarcinoma involving the uterine cervix: magnetic resonance imaging findings in tumours of endometrial, compared with cervical, origin. Can Assoc Radiol J 2006; 57: 43-8.
5. Miller BE, Flax SD, Arheart K, Photopulos G. The presentation of adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cancer 1993: 72: 1281-5.
6. Whitcomb BP. Gynecologic malignancies. Surg Clin N Am 2008; 88: 301-17.
7. Lapela M, Leskinen-Kallio S, Varpula M, Grenman S, Alanen K, Nagren K, Lehikoinen P, Ruotsalainen U, Teras M, Joensuu H. Imaging of uterine carcinoma by carbon-11-methionine and PET. J Nucl Med 1994; 35: 1618-23.
8. Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, Margariti PA, Testa A, Zannoni GF, Giordano D, Scambia G, Marano P. Localregional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology 2004; 231: 372-8.
9. Lin G, Ng KK, Chang CJ, Wang JJ, Ho KC, Yen TC, Wu TI, Wang CC, Chen YR, Huang YT, Ng SH, Jung SM, Chang TC, Lai CH. Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted 3.0-TMR imaging-initial experience. Radiology 2009; 250: 784-92.
10. Seki H, Kimura M, Sakai K. Myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma: assessment with dynamic MR and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. Clin Radiol 1997; 52: 18-23.
11. Barwick TD, Rockall AG, Barton DP, Sohaib SA. Imaging of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Clin Radiol 2006; 61: 545-55.
12. Yamashita Y, Baba T, Baba Y, Nishimura R, Ikeda S, Takahasi M, Ohtake H, Okamura H. Dynamic contrastenhanced MR imaging of uterine cervical cancer: pharmacokinetic analysis with histopathologic correlation and its importance in predicting the outcome of radiation therapy. Radiology 2000; 216: 803-9.
13. Van Vierzen PBJ, Massuger LFAG, Ruys SHJ, Barentsz JO. Fast dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging of cervical carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1998; 53: 183-92.
14. Cunha TM, Felix A, Cabral I. Preoperative assessment of deep myometrial and cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma: Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and gross visual inspection. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2001; 11: 130-6.
15. Jacomuzzi ME, Ferrero A, Cirillo S, Martinchic L, Regge D, Maggiorotto F, Zola P, Sismondi P. Magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer: assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2004; 14: 39.
16. Kuhl CK, Traber F, Schild HH. Whole-body high-fieldstrength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. Part II. Technical considerations and clinical applications. Radiology 2008; 247: 16-35.
17. Willinek WA, Schild HH. Clinical advantages of 3.0 T MRI over 1.5 T. Eur J Radiol 2008; 65: 2-14.
18. Kumar D, Kumar S, Payne D, Tyring SK, Dinh TV. Synchronous endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1997; 7: 466-70.
19. Humphries PD, Sebire NJ, Siegel MJ, Olsen OE. Tumors in pediatric patients at diffusion-weighted MR imaging: apparent diffusion coefficient and tumor cellularity. Radiology 2007; 245: 848-54.
20. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, Umeoka S, Mikami Y, Fujii S, Togashi K. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26: 682-7.