The Added Role of MR Imaging in Treatment Stratification of Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies: What the Radiologist Needs to Know

References

• 1 Innocenti P, Pulli F, Savino L, et al.. Staging of cervical cancer: reliability of transrectal US. Radiology 1992;185(1):201–205.
  Google Scholar
• 2 Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, et al.. Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology 1999;212(3):711–718.
  Google Scholar
• 3 Follen M, Levenback CF, Iyer RB, et al.. Imaging in cervical cancer. Cancer 2003;98(9 Suppl):2028–2038.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 4 Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, Azizi L, Stern JL. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86(1):43–50.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 5 Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D, et al.. Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology 2001;218(3):776–782.
  Google Scholar
• 6 Sala E. Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis. Semin Roentgenol 2008;43(4):290–302.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 7 Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T, et al.. Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol 2011;21(5):1102–1110.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 8 Kinkel K, Forstner R, Danza FM, et al.. Staging of endometrial cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Imaging. Eur Radiol 2009;19(7):1565–1574.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 9 Querleu D, Planchamp F, Narducci F, et al.. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial cancer in France: recommendations of the Institut National du Cancer and the Société Française d’Oncologie Gynécologique. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011;21(5):945–950.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 10 The Royal College of Radiologists. Making the best use of clinical radiology services: referral guidelines. 6th ed. London, England: The Royal College of Radiologists, 2007.
  Google Scholar
• 11 The Royal College of Radiologists. RCR recommendations for cross-sectional imaging in cancer management. London, England: The Royal College of Radiologists, 2006; 100–102.
  Google Scholar
• 12 Johnson W, Taylor MB, Carrington BM, Bonington SC, Swindell R. The value of hyoscine butylbromide in pelvic MRI. Clin Radiol 2007;62(11):1087–1093.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 13 Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D. MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(6):1577–1587.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 14 deSouza NM, Dina R, McIndoe GA, Soutter WP. Cervical cancer: value of an endovaginal coil magnetic resonance imaging technique in detecting small volume disease and assessing parametrial extension. Gynecol Oncol 2006;102(1):80–85.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 15 deSouza NM, Whittle M, Williams AD, et al.. Magnetic resonance imaging of the primary site in stage I cervical carcinoma: A comparison of endovaginal coil with external phased array coil techniques at 0.5T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12(6):1020–1026.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 16 Amendola MA, Hricak H, Mitchell DG, et al.. Utilization of diagnostic studies in the pretreatment evaluation of invasive cervical cancer in the United States: results of intergroup protocol ACRIN 6651/GOG 183. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(30):7454–7459.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 17 Shibutani O, Joja I, Shiraiwa M, et al.. Endometrial carcinoma: efficacy of thin-section oblique axial MR images for evaluating cervical invasion. Abdom Imaging 1999;24(5):520–526.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 18 Shiraiwa M, Joja I, Asakawa T, et al.. Cervical carcinoma: efficacy of thin-section oblique axial T2-weighted images for evaluating parametrial invasion. Abdom Imaging 1999;24(5):514–519.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 19 Sohaib SA, Sahdev A, Van Trappen P, Jacobs IJ, Reznek RH. Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(5):1297–1304.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 20 Thomassin-Naggara I, Bazot M, Daraï E, Callard P, Thomassin J, Cuenod CA. Epithelial ovarian tumors: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 2008;248(1):148–159.
  Google Scholar
• 21 Akita A, Shinmoto H, Hayashi S, et al.. Comparison of T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging at 1.5 T for assessing the local extent of cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2011;21(9):1850–1857.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 22 Vargas HA, Akin O, Zheng J, et al.. The value of MR imaging when the site of uterine cancer origin is uncertain. Radiology 2011;258(3):785–792.
  Google Scholar
• 23 Kinkel K, Ariche M, Tardivon AA, et al.. Differentiation between recurrent tumor and benign conditions after treatment of gynecologic pelvic carcinoma: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging. Radiology 1997;204(1):55–63.
  Google Scholar
• 24 Qayyum A. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the abdomen and pelvis: concepts and applications. RadioGraphics 2009;29(6):1797–1810.
  Google Scholar
• 25 Thoeny HC, Forstner R, De Keyzer F. Genitourinary applications of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the pelvis. Radiology 2012;263(2):326–342.
  Google Scholar
• 26 Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kigawa J, et al.. Diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating benign from malignant uterine endometrial cavity lesions: initial results. Eur Radiol 2008;18(2):384–389.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 27 Katayama M, Masui T, Kobayashi S, et al.. Diffusion-weighted echo planar imaging of ovarian tumors: is it useful to measure apparent diffusion coefficients? J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002;26(2):250–256.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 28 McVeigh PZ, Syed AM, Milosevic M, Fyles A, Haider MA. Diffusion-weighted MRI in cervical cancer. Eur Radiol 2008;18(5):1058–1064.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 29 Moteki T, Ishizaka H. Diffusion-weighted EPI of cystic ovarian lesions: evaluation of cystic contents using apparent diffusion coefficients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12(6):1014–1019.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 30 Naganawa S, Sato C, Kumada H, Ishigaki T, Miura S, Takizawa O. Apparent diffusion coefficient in cervical cancer of the uterus: comparison with the normal uterine cervix. Eur Radiol 2005;15(1):71–78.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 31 Nakayama T, Yoshimitsu K, Irie H, et al.. Diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR imaging and ADC mapping in the differential diagnosis of ovarian cystic masses: usefulness of detecting keratinoid substances in mature cystic teratomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22(2):271–278.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 32 Namimoto T, Awai K, Nakaura T, Yanaga Y, Hirai T, Yamashita Y. Role of diffusion-weighted imaging in the diagnosis of gynecological diseases. Eur Radiol 2009;19(3):745–760.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 33 Shen SH, Chiou YY, Wang JH, et al.. Diffusion-weighted single-shot echo-planar imaging with parallel technique in assessment of endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(2):481–488.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 34 Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, et al.. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiating uterine sarcomas from benign leiomyomas. Eur Radiol 2008;18(4):723–730.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 35 Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, et al.. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26(3):682–687.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 36 Rechichi G, Galimberti S, Signorelli M, Perego P, Valsecchi MG, Sironi S. Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 1.5-T. Eur Radiol 2010;20(3):754–762.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 37 Beddy P, Moyle P, Kataoka M, et al.. Evaluation of depth of myometrial invasion and overall staging in endometrial cancer: comparison of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2012;262(2):530–537.
  Google Scholar
• 38 Thomassin-Naggara I, Daraï E, Cuenod CA, et al.. Contribution of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting benignity of complex adnexal masses. Eur Radiol 2009;19(6):1544–1552.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 39 Thomassin-Naggara I, Toussaint I, Perrot N, et al.. Characterization of complex adnexal masses: value of adding perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MR imaging to conventional MR imaging. Radiology 2011;258(3):793–803.
  Google Scholar
• 40 Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kanasaki Y, et al.. Detection of peritoneal dissemination in gynecological malignancy: evaluation by diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2008;18(1):18–23.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 41 Roy C, Bierry G, Matau A, Bazille G, Pasquali R. Value of diffusion-weighted imaging to detect small malignant pelvic lymph nodes at 3 T. Eur Radiol 2010;20(8):1803–1811.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 42 Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, et al.. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer 2005;92(9):1599–1610.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 43 Thomassin-Naggara I, Balvay D, Aubert E, et al.. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging analysis of complex adnexal masses: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):738–745.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 44 Dilks P, Narayanan P, Reznek R, Sahdev A, Rockall A. Can quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI independently characterize an ovarian mass? Eur Radiol 2010;20(9):2176–2183.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 45 Bernardin L, Dilks P, Liyanage S, Miquel ME, Sahdev A, Rockall A. Effectiveness of semi-quantitative multiphase dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI as a predictor of malignancy in complex adnexal masses: radiological and pathological correlation. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):880–890.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 46 Mayr NA, Wang JZ, Zhang D, et al.. Longitudinal changes in tumor perfusion pattern during the radiation therapy course and its clinical impact in cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;77(2):502–508.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 47 Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Jajoura D, et al.. Ultra-early predictive assay for treatment failure using functional magnetic resonance imaging and clinical prognostic parameters in cervical cancer. Cancer 2010;116(4):903–912.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 48 Zahra MA, Tan LT, Priest AN, et al.. Semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging measurements predict radiation response in cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74(3):766–773.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 49 Funt SA, Hricak H. Ovarian malignancies. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2003;14(4):329–337.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 50 Patterson DM, Padhani AR, Collins DJ. Technology insight: water diffusion MRI—a potential new biomarker of response to cancer therapy. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2008;5(4):220–233.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 51 Koh DM, Takahara T, Imai Y, Collins DJ. Practical aspects of assessing tumors using clinical diffusion-weighted imaging in the body. Magn Reson Med Sci 2007;6(4):211–224.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 52 Harry VN, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Parkin DE. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the early detection of response to chemoradiation in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008;111(2):213–220.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 53 Kyriazi S, Collins DJ, Morgan VA, Giles SL, deSouza NM. Diffusion-weighted imaging of peritoneal disease for noninvasive staging of advanced ovarian cancer. RadioGraphics 2010;30(5):1269–1285.
  Google Scholar
• 54 Kyriazi S, Kaye SB, deSouza NM. Imaging ovarian cancer and peritoneal metastases—current and emerging techniques. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2010;7(7):381–393.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 55 Sala E, Priest AN, Kataoka M, et al.. Apparent diffusion coefficient and vascular signal fraction measurements with magnetic resonance imaging: feasibility in metastatic ovarian cancer at 3 Tesla: technical development. Eur Radiol 2010;20(2):491–496.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 56 Nakamura K, Imafuku N, Nishida T, et al.. Measurement of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) of the primary tumor and CA125 are predictive of disease recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2012;124(2):335–339.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 57 Delikatny EJ, Russell P, Hunter JC, et al.. Proton MR and human cervical neoplasia: ex vivo spectroscopy allows distinction of invasive carcinoma of the cervix from carcinoma in situ and other preinvasive lesions. Radiology 1993;188(3):791–796.
  Google Scholar
• 58 McLean MA, Priest AN, Joubert I, et al.. Metabolic characterization of primary and metastatic ovarian cancer by 1H-MRS in vivo at 3T. Magn Reson Med 2009;62(4):855–861.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 59 Uterine (womb) cancer incidence statistics. Cancer Research UK. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/uterus/incidence/. Published May 12, 2012. Updated December 17, 2012.
  Google Scholar
• 60 Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105(2):103–104.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 61 Sala E, Rockall A, Kubik-Huch RA. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging of endometrial cancer. Eur Radiol 2011;21(3):468–473.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 62 Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, Timmerman D, Van Limbergen E, Vergote I. Treatment modalities in endometrial cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2007;19(5):479–485.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 63 Frei KA, Kinkel K, Bonél HM, Lu Y, Zaloudek C, Hricak H. 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(2):444–449.
  Google Scholar
• 64 Chan JK, Cheung MK, Huh WK, et al.. Therapeutic role of lymph node resection in endometrioid corpus cancer: a study of 12,333 patients. Cancer 2006;107(8):1823–1830.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 65 Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY, et al.. Comparison of the validity of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of patients with uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008;108(3):486–492.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 66 Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kaji Y, Sakamoto S, Sugimura K. Established, emerging and future applications of FDG-PET/CT in the uterine cancer. Clin Radiol 2011;66(4):297–307.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 67 Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, et al.. Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(6):1652–1658.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 68 Kitajima K, Suzuki K, Senda M, et al.. Preoperative nodal staging of uterine cancer: is contrast-enhanced PET/CT more accurate than non-enhanced PET/CT or enhanced CT alone? Ann Nucl Med 2011;25(7):511–519.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 69 Larson DM, Connor GP, Broste SK, Krawisz BR, Johnson KK. Prognostic significance of gross myometrial invasion with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88(3):394–398.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 70 Rockall AG, Meroni R, Sohaib SA, et al.. Evaluation of endometrial carcinoma on magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17(1):188–196.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 71 Dowdy SC, Mariani A. Lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: when, not if. Lancet 2010;375(9721):1138–1140.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 72 Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, et al.. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100(23):1707–1716.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 73 ASTEC study groupKitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmar MK. Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet 2009;373(9658):125–136.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 74 Todo Y, Kato H, Kaneuchi M, Watari H, Takeda M, Sakuragi N. Survival effect of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet 2010;375(9721):1165–1172.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 75 Chan JK, Sherman AE, Kapp DS, et al.. Influence of gynecologic oncologists on the survival of patients with endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(7):832–838.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 76 Venkat P, Chen LM, Young-Lin N, et al.. An economic analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: costs, charges and reimbursements to hospitals and professionals. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125(1):237–240.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 77 National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uterine neoplasms. In: NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Version 3. Fort Washington, Pa: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2012.
  Google Scholar
• 78 Duncan KA, Drinkwater KJ, Frost C, Remedios D, Barter S. Staging cancer of the uterus: a national audit of MRI accuracy. Clin Radiol 2012;67(6):523–530.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 79 Hricak H, Hamm B, Semelka RC, et al.. Carcinoma of the uterus: use of gadopentetate dimeglumine in MR imaging. Radiology 1991;181(1):95–106.
  Google Scholar
• 80 Ito K, Matsumoto T, Nakada T, Nakanishi T, Fujita N, Yamashita H. Assessing myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma with dynamic MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994;18(1):77–86.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 81 Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, et al.. Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology 2004;231(2):372–378.
  Google Scholar
• 82 Nakao Y, Yokoyama M, Hara K, et al.. MR imaging in endometrial carcinoma as a diagnostic tool for the absence of myometrial invasion. Gynecol Oncol 2006;102(2):343–347.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 83 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(1):18–23.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 84 Sironi S, Colombo E, Villa G, et al.. Myometrial invasion by endometrial carcinoma: assessment with plain and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1992;185(1):207–212.
  Google Scholar
• 85 Yamashita Y, Harada M, Sawada T, Takahashi M, Miyazaki K, Okamura H. Normal uterus and FIGO stage I endometrial carcinoma: dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1993;186(2):495–501.
  Google Scholar
• 86 Sala E, Crawford R, Senior E, et al.. Added value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in predicting advanced stage disease in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009;19(1):141–146.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 87 Hricak H, Stern JL, Fisher MR, Shapeero LG, Winkler ML, Lacey CG. Endometrial carcinoma staging by MR imaging. Radiology 1987;162(2):297–305.
  Google Scholar
• 88 Lien HH, Blomlie V, Tropé C, Kaern J, Abeler VM. Cancer of the endometrium: value of MR imaging in determining depth of invasion into the myometrium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;157(6):1221–1223.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 89 Barwick TD, Rockall AG, Barton DP, Sohaib SA. Imaging of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Clin Radiol 2006;61(7):545–555.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 90 Ascher SM, Reinhold C. Imaging of cancer of the endometrium. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40(3):563–576.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 91 Rockall AG, Sohaib SA, Harisinghani MG, et al.. Diagnostic performance of nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in patients with endometrial and cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(12):2813–2821.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 92 Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Giles D, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay PM. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes and recurrence with laparoscopy, vaginal/laparoscopy and laparotomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2011;32(5):476–480.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 93 Long KC, Zhou Q, Hensley ML, et al.. Patterns of recurrence in 1988 FIGO stage IC endometrioid endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125(1):99–102.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 94 Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, et al.. Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet 2000;355(9213):1404–1411.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 95 Sohaib SA, Houghton SL, Meroni R, Rockall AG, Blake P, Reznek RH. Recurrent endometrial cancer: patterns of recurrent disease and assessment of prognosis. Clin Radiol 2007;62(1):28–34; discussion 35–36.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 96 Franchi M, La Fianza A, Babilonti L, et al.. Clinical value of computerized tomography (CT) in assessment of recurrent uterine cancers. Gynecol Oncol 1989;35(1):31–37.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 97 Belhocine T, De Barsy C, Hustinx R, Willems-Foidart J. Usefulness of (18)F-FDG PET in the post-therapy surveillance of endometrial carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29(9):1132–1139.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 98 Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, et al.. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent uterine cancer: comparison with PET and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36(3):362–372.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 99 Ben Arie A, Lavie O, Gdalevich M, et al.. Temporal pattern of recurrence of stage I endometrial cancer in relation to histological risk factors. Eur J Surg Oncol 2012;38(2):166–169.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 100 Harlow BL, Weiss NS, Lofton S. The epidemiology of sarcomas of the uterus. J Natl Cancer Inst 1986;76(3):399–402.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 101 Curtis RE, Freedman DM, Sherman ME, Fraumeni JF. Risk of malignant mixed mullerian tumors after tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(1):70–74.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 102 Huang YT, Huang KG, Ueng SH, Shaw SW. Irradiation-induced uterine malignant mixed müllerian tumor. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2006;45(4):353–355.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 103 Bharwani N, Newland A, Tunariu N, et al.. MRI appearances of uterine malignant mixed müllerian tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(5):1268–1275.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 104 Sahdev A, Sohaib SA, Jacobs I, Shepherd JH, Oram DH, Reznek RH. MR imaging of uterine sarcomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177(6):1307–1311.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 105 Shapeero LG, Hricak H. Mixed müllerian sarcoma of the uterus: MR imaging findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;153(2):317–319.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 106 Teo SY, Babagbemi KT, Peters HE, Mortele KJ. Primary malignant mixed mullerian tumor of the uterus: findings on sonography, CT, and gadolinium-enhanced MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(1):278–283.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 107 Amant F, Cadron I, Fuso L, et al.. Endometrial carcinosarcomas have a different prognosis and pattern of spread compared to high-risk epithelial endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2005;98(2):274–280.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 108 Callister M, Ramondetta LM, Jhingran A, Burke TW, Eifel PJ. Malignant mixed Müllerian tumors of the uterus: analysis of patterns of failure, prognostic factors, and treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58(3):786–796.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 109 Vaidya AP, Horowitz NS, Oliva E, Halpern EF, Duska LR. Uterine malignant mixed mullerian tumors should not be included in studies of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2006;103(2):684–687.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 110 Koyama T, Togashi K, Konishi I, et al.. MR imaging of endometrial stromal sarcoma: correlation with pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173(3):767–772.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 111 Ueda M, Otsuka M, Hatakenaka M, et al.. MR imaging findings of uterine endometrial stromal sarcoma: differentiation from endometrial carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2001;11(1):28–33.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 112 Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60(5):277–300.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 113 Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105(2):107–108.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 114 Qin Y, Peng Z, Lou J, Liu H, Deng F, Zheng Y. Discrepancies between clinical staging and pathological findings of operable cervical carcinoma with stage IB-IIB: a retrospective analysis of 818 patients. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009;49(5):542–544.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 115 Nicolet V, Carignan L, Bourdon F, Prosmanne O. MR imaging of cervical carcinoma: a practical staging approach. RadioGraphics 2000;20(6):1539–1549.
  Google Scholar
• 116 Okamoto Y, Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Yoshikawa H, Itai Y. MR imaging of the uterine cervix: imaging-pathologic correlation. RadioGraphics 2003;23(2):425–445; quiz 534–535.
  Google Scholar
• 117 Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F, et al.. Early invasive cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 Intergroup Study. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(36):5687–5694.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 118 Sahdev A, Sohaib SA, Wenaden AE, Shepherd JH, Reznek RH. The performance of magnetic resonance imaging in early cervical carcinoma: a long-term experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17(3):629–636.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 119 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.
  Google Scholar
• 120 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.
  Google Scholar
• 121 Sahdev A, Jones J, Shepherd JH, Reznek RH. MR imaging appearances of the female pelvis after trachelectomy. RadioGraphics 2005;25(1):41–52.
  Google Scholar
• 122 Zand KR, Reinhold C, Abe H, Maheshwari S, Mohamed A, Upegui D. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervix. Cancer Imaging 2007;7:69–76.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 123 Scheidler J, Heuck AF. Imaging of cancer of the cervix. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40(3):577–590, vii.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 124 Sheu MH, Chang CY, Wang JH, Yen MS. Preoperative staging of cervical carcinoma with MR imaging: a reappraisal of diagnostic accuracy and pitfalls. Eur Radiol 2001;11(9):1828–1833.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 125 Kaur H, Silverman PM, Iyer RB, Verschraegen CF, Eifel PJ, Charnsangavej C. Diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(6):1621–1631.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 126 Rockall AG, Ghosh S, Alexander-Sefre F, et al.. Can MRI rule out bladder and rectal invasion in cervical cancer to help select patients for limited EUA? Gynecol Oncol 2006;101(2):244–249.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 127 Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Coakley FV, et al.. Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation - ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Radiology 2007;245(2):491–498.
  Google Scholar
• 128 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.
  Google Scholar
• 129 Larciprete G, Casalino B, Segatore MF, Jarvis S, Catarinella V, Cirese E. Pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer: extraperitoneal versus laparoscopic approach. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;126(2):259–263.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 130 Aoki Y, Sasaki M, Watanabe M, et al.. High-risk group in node-positive patients with stage IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy and postoperative pelvic irradiation. Gynecol Oncol 2000;77(2):305–309.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 131 Cheng X, Cai S, Li Z, Tang M, Xue M, Zang R. The prognosis of women with stage IB1-IIB node-positive cervical carcinoma after radical surgery. World J Surg Oncol 2004;2:47.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 132 Magné N, Chargari C, Vicenzi L, et al.. New trends in the evaluation and treatment of cervix cancer: the role of FDG-PET. Cancer Treat Rev 2008;34(8):671–681.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 133 Rose PG, Adler LP, Rodriguez M, Faulhaber PF, Abdul-Karim FW, Miraldi F. Positron emission tomography for evaluating para-aortic nodal metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer before surgical staging: a surgicopathologic study. J Clin Oncol 1999;17(1):41–45.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 134 Lin WC, Hung YC, Yeh LS, Kao CH, Yen RF, Shen YY. Usefulness of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect para-aortic lymph nodal metastasis in advanced cervical cancer with negative computed tomography findings. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89(1):73–76.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 135 Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Roed H, et al.. The diagnostic value of PET/CT scanning in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 2007;106(1):29–34.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 136 Chao A, Ho KC, Wang CC, et al.. Positron emission tomography in evaluating the feasibility of curative intent in cervical cancer patients with limited distant lymph node metastases. Gynecol Oncol 2008;110(2):172–178.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 137 Addley HC, Vargas HA, Moyle PL, Crawford R, Sala E. Pelvic imaging following chemotherapy and radiation therapy for gynecologic malignancies. RadioGraphics 2010;30(7):1843–1856.
  Google Scholar
• 138 Beddy P, Rangarajan RD, Sala E. Role of MRI in intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer: what the radiologist needs to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196(3):W341–W347.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 139 Taylor A, Rockall AG, Reznek RH, Powell ME. Mapping pelvic lymph nodes: guidelines for delineation in intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63(5):1604–1612.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 140 Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, et al.. Clinical outcomes of definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy with fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography simulation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;77(4):1085–1091.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 141 Ascher SM, Takahama J, Jha RC. Staging of gynecologic malignancies. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001;12(2):105–129.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 142 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.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 143 Flueckiger F, Ebner F, Poschauko H, Tamussino K, Einspieler R, Ranner G. Cervical cancer: serial MR imaging before and after primary radiation therapy—a 2-year follow-up study. Radiology 1992;184(1):89–93.
  Google Scholar
• 144 Hricak H, Quivey JM, Campos Z, et al.. Carcinoma of the cervix: predictive value of clinical and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging assessment of prognostic factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;27(4):791–801.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 145 Hricak H, Swift PS, Campos Z, Quivey JM, Gildengorin V, Göranson H. Irradiation of the cervix uteri: value of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1993;189(2):381–388.
  Google Scholar
• 146 Mayr NA, Hawighorst H, Yuh WT, Essig M, Magnotta VA, Knopp MV. MR microcirculation assessment in cervical cancer: correlations with histomorphological tumor markers and clinical outcome. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10(3):267–276.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 147 Mayr NA, Wang JZ, Lo SS, et al.. Translating response during therapy into ultimate treatment outcome: a personalized 4-dimensional MRI tumor volumetric regression approach in cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(3):719–727.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 148 Chen J, Zhang Y, Liang B, Yang Z. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cervical cancer. Eur J Radiol 2010;74(3):e101–e106.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 149 Harry VN, Semple SI, Parkin DE, Gilbert FJ. Use of new imaging techniques to predict tumour response to therapy. Lancet Oncol 2010;11(1):92–102.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 150 Babar S, Rockall A, Goode A, Shepherd J, Reznek R. Magnetic resonance imaging appearances of recurrent cervical carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17(3):637–645.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 151 Estape R, Angioli R. Surgical management of advanced and recurrent cervical cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 1999;16(3):236–241.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 152 Vincens E, Balleyguier C, Rey A, et al.. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting residual disease in patients treated for stage IB2/II cervical carcinoma with chemoradiation therapy: correlation of radiologic findings with surgicopathologic results. Cancer 2008;113(8):2158–2165.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 153 Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, et al.. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 2009;11(2):102–125.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 154 Yen TC, See LC, Chang TC, et al.. Defining the priority of using 18F-FDG PET for recurrent cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2004;45(10):1632–1639.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 155 Vaughan S, Coward JI, Bast RC, et al.. Rethinking ovarian cancer: recommendations for improving outcomes. Nat Rev Cancer 2011;11(10):719–725.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 156 Hornung R, Urs E, Serenella E, et al.. Analysis of potential prognostic factors in 111 patients with ovarian cancer. Cancer Lett 2004;206(1):97–106.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 157 Münstedt K, Franke FE. Role of primary surgery in advanced ovarian cancer. World J Surg Oncol 2004;2:32.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 158 Coakley FV. Staging ovarian cancer: role of imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40(3):609–636.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 159 Huober J, Meyer A, Wagner U, Wallwiener D. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval laparotomy in advanced ovarian cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2002;128(3):153–160.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 160 Schwartz PE. Cytoreductive surgery for the management of stage IV ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1997;64(1):1–3.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 161 Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, et al.. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363(10):943–953.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 162 van der Burg ME, van Lent M, Buyse M, et al.. The effect of debulking surgery after induction chemotherapy on the prognosis in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecological Cancer Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. N Engl J Med 1995;332(10):629–634.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 163 Hricak H, Chen M, Coakley FV, et al.. Complex adnexal masses: detection and characterization with MR imaging—multivariate analysis. Radiology 2000;214(1):39–46.
  Google Scholar
• 164 Tempany CM, Zou KH, Silverman SG, Brown DL, Kurtz AB, McNeil BJ. Staging of advanced ovarian cancer: comparison of imaging modalities—report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 2000;215(3):761–767.
  Google Scholar
• 165 Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA, et al.. Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology 2002;223(2):495–499.
  Google Scholar
• 166 de Bree E, Koops W, Kröger R, van Ruth S, Witkamp AJ, Zoetmulder FA. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal or appendiceal origin: correlation of preoperative CT with intraoperative findings and evaluation of interobserver agreement. J Surg Oncol 2004;86(2):64–73.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 167 Jacquet P, Jelinek JS, Steves MA, Sugarbaker PH. Evaluation of computed tomography in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer 1993;72(5):1631–1636.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 168 Ricke J, Sehouli J, Hach C, Hänninen EL, Lichtenegger W, Felix R. Prospective evaluation of contrast-enhanced MRI in the depiction of peritoneal spread in primary or recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur Radiol 2003;13(5):943–949.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 169 Kyriazi S, Collins DJ, Messiou C, et al.. Metastatic ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer: assessing chemotherapy response with diffusion-weighted MR imaging—value of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficients. Radiology 2011;261(1):182–192.
  Google Scholar
• 170 Kyriazi S, Nye E, Stamp G, Collins DJ, Kaye SB, deSouza NM. Value of diffusion-weighted imaging for assessing site-specific response of advanced ovarian cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficients with epithelial and stromal densities on histology. Cancer Biomark 2010;7(4):201–210.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 171 Low RN, Gurney J. Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in the oncology patient: value of breathhold DWI compared to unenhanced and gadolinium-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25(4):848–858.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 172 Low RN, Duggan B, Barone RM, Saleh F, Song SY. Treated ovarian cancer: MR imaging, laparotomy reassessment, and serum CA-125 values compared with clinical outcome at 1 year. Radiology 2005;235(3):918–926.
  Google Scholar
• 173 Barentsz JO, Jager GJ, van Vierzen PB, et al.. Staging urinary bladder cancer after transurethral biopsy: value of fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1996;201(1):185–193.
  Google Scholar
• 174 Brown G, Richards CJ, Bourne MW, et al.. Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology 2003;227(2):371–377.
  Google Scholar
• 175 Yang WT, Lam WW, Yu MY, Cheung TH, Metreweli C. Comparison of dynamic helical CT and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175(3):759–766.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 176 Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Oosterhof GO, Witjes JA, Ruijs SJ. Pelvic adenopathy in prostatic and urinary bladder carcinoma: MR imaging with a three-dimensional TI-weighted magnetization-prepared-rapid gradient-echo sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167(6):1503–1507.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 177 Thoeny HC, Triantafyllou M, Birkhaeuser FD, et al.. Combined ultrasmall superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging reliably detect pelvic lymph node metastases in normal-sized nodes of bladder and prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol 2009;55(4):761–769.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 178 Lin G, Ho KC, Wang JJ, et al.. Detection of lymph node metastasis in cervical and uterine cancers by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28(1):128–135.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 179 Kim JK, Kim KA, Park BW, Kim N, Cho KS. Feasibility of diffusion-weighted imaging in the differentiation of metastatic from nonmetastatic lymph nodes: early experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28(3):714–719.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 180 Nakai G, Matsuki M, Inada Y, et al.. Detection and evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with gynecologic malignancies using body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008;32(5):764–768.
  Medline Google Scholar