Journal of SAFOMS

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pelvis: A One-stop Shop Modality for the Staging of Carcinoma of Cervix

Ajit D Karambelkar, Rishabh D Bora

Keywords : Carcinoma, Cervix, Magnetic resonance imaging, Staging

Citation Information : Karambelkar AD, Bora RD. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pelvis: A One-stop Shop Modality for the Staging of Carcinoma of Cervix. J South Asian Feder Menopause Soc 2020; 8 (1):7-23.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10032-1193

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 18-00-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim and objective: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of pelvis as a one-stop shop modality for locoregional staging of carcinoma of the cervix. Compare the MRI staging with the clinical staging of the carcinoma of the cervix. Materials and methods: We conducted pelvic MRI examinations on histological proved 83 cases of cervical carcinoma on MRI 1.5 T scanner. Results: Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated cervical mass in 79 out of 83 (95%) patients. No mass lesion was demonstrated in 4 out of 83 patients, who were clinically diagnosed as stage I. X2 test demonstrated X2 value of 43.6 and p value < 0.01 indicating a significant difference between staging by staging by MRI and that by clinical staging. Z score test also showed a significant difference in staging by MRI and that by clinical staging for stages IB, IIB, IIIB, and IVA with a p value < 0.05. The Z score (RD) was maximum for stage IIIB and minimum 0.034 for stage IIIA, suggesting that the greatest difference was observed in stage IIIB. We could not find any significant difference for stage IIIA, IA and stage IIA. Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging is superior to clinical staging of the carcinoma of the uterine cervix in stage IB, IIB and IVA. Magnetic resonance imaging has an excellent ability to demonstrate the locoregional extent of the tumor. Hence, it should be used as a one-stop shop modality for the staging of cervical carcinoma.

PDF Share
  1. Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 1999;49(1):33–64. DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.49.1.33.
  2. Nicolet V, MR Imaging of Cervical Carcinoma: A Practical Staging Approach FOGSI. 2010.
  3. Bosch XCSdS FX. 2005 estimates. United Nations' population division world population prospects the 2004 revision, New York. Br J Cancer 2005;98(1):15–21. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604146.
  4. Castellsagué SdS X, Aguado T, Louie KS, et al., HPV and Cervical Cancer in the World. 2007 Report. WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cervical Cancer, HPV Information Centre. IARC GLOBOCON. 2002.
  5. Ries LAG, Harkins D, Krapcho M, et al., ed. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2003, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, SEER Cancer Statistics Review 2006.
  6. Castellsagué SdS X, Aguado T, Louie KS, et al., WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cervical Cancer (HPV Information Centre) cervical cancer –the disease and its burden in India. HPV and Cervical Cancer in the World 2007 Report 2010.
  7. Chiang SH, Quek ST. Carcinoma of the cervix: role of MR imaging. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2003;32(4):550–556.
  8. Zand KR, Reinhold C, Abe H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervix. Cancer Imaging 2007;7(1):69–76. DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2007.0011.
  9. Togashi K, Morikawa K, Kataoka ML, et al. Cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 1998;8(2):391–397. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.1880080219.
  10. Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, et al. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86(1):43–50. DOI: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00109-5.
  11. 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. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(71)90551-5.
  12. Dargent D, Frobert JL, Beau G. V factor (tumor volume) and T factor (FIGO classification) in the assessment of cervix cancer prognosis: the risk of lymph node spread. Gynecol Oncol 1985;22(1):15–22. DOI: 10.1016/0090-8258(85)90002-2.
  13. Swift PS, In: Liebel SAPT, ed. Carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Clinical radiation oncology. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders; 1998;1998:799–841.
  14. Reinhold CGB, Ascher SM. Uterus and cervix Semelka RC, Ascher SM, et al., ed. MRI of the abdomen and pelvis: a text atlas, vol. 1997, New York, NY: Wiley-Liss; 1997. pp. 585–660.
  15. McCarthy SHH. The uterus and vagina Higgins CB, Hricak H, Helms CA, ed. Magnetic resonance imaging of the body. 3rd ed., New York, NY: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. pp. 761–814.
  16. 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 magnetic resonance imaging of the abnormal female pelvis. 1996;198(2):403–409. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.198.2.8596840.
  17. Butler H, Bryan P, LiPuma J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the abnormal female pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;143(6):1259–1266. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.143.6.1259.
  18. Bies JR, Ellis J, Kopecky K, et al. Assessment of primary gynecologic malignancies: comparison of 0.15-T resistive MRI with CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;143(6):1249–1257. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.143.6.1249.
  19. Bartoli JM. MGARP. Role of X-ray CT and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of gynecological malignant tumor. Ann Radiol (Paris) 1990;33(4-5):241–247.
  20. Michniewicz K, Oellinger J. Diagnostic imaging in invasive cervical carcinoma: MRI, CT, and ultrasonography. Zentralbl Gynakol 2001;123(4):222–228. DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-14784.
  21. Vorgias G, Katsoulis M, Argyrou K, et al. Preoperative imaging of primary intra-abdominal gynaecological malignancies. Diagnostic accuracy of CT-scan and MRI. A greek cohort study. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2002;23(2):139–144.
  22. Cobby M, Browning J, Jones A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and endosonography in the local staging of carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Radiol 1990;63(753):673–679. DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-63-753-673.
  23. Powell MC, Worthington BS, Sokal M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging--its application to cervical carcinoma. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93(12):1276–1285. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1986.tb07866.x.
  24. Bartoli JM, Moulin G, Di Stefano-Louineau D, et al. Uterine cervix cancers: staging by magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Radiol (Paris) 1990;33(4-5):241–247.
  25. Williams MP, Husband JE, Heron CW, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Radiol 1989;62(738):544–550. DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-62-738-544.
  26. Sheu M, Chang C, Wang J, et al. MR staging of clinical stage I and IIa cervical carcinoma: a reappraisal of efficacy and pitfalls. Eur J Radiol 2001;38(3):225–231. DOI: 10.1016/s0720-048x(00)00278-3.
  27. Özsarlak Ö, Tjalma W, Schepens E, et al. The correlation of preoperative CT, MR imaging, and clinical staging (FIGO) with histopathology findings in primary cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2003;13(10):2338–2345. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-003-1928-2.
  28. Seki H, Azumi R, Kimura M, et al. Stromal invasion by carcinoma of the cervix: assessment with dynamic MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168(6):1579–1585. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.168.6.9168730.
  29. Tsuda K, Murakami T, Kurachi H, et al. MR imaging of cervical carcinoma: comparison among T2-weighted, dynamic, and postcontrast T1-weighted images with histopathological correlation. Abdom Imaging 1997;22(1):103–107. DOI: 10.1007/s002619900151.
  30. Perez CA, Camel HM, Askin F, et al. Endometrial extension of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a prognostic factor that may modify staging. Cancer 1981;48(1):170–180. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19810701);2-0.
  31. Martin AJ, Poon CS, Thomas GM, et al. MR evaluation of cervical cancer in hysterectomy specimens: correlation of quantitative T2 measurement and histology. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994;4(6):779–786. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.1880040607.
  32. Goto M, Okamura S, Ueki M, et al. Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of extension in uterine cervical cancer cases with special attention to imaging planes. Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 1990;42(12):1627–1633.
  33. Einspieler R, Ebner F, Hofmann HM, et al. Staging of cervix cancer using MRT. Rofo 1990;152(1):67–70. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008- 1046819.
  34. Roy C, Le Bras Y, Mangold L, et al. Small pelvic lymph node metastases: evaluation with MR imaging. Clin Radiol 1997;52(6):437–440. DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(97)80004-9.
  35. Kim SH, Han MC. Invasion of the urinary bladder by uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168(2):393–397. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016214.
  36. Soyer P, Rigaud C, Masselot J, et al. Evaluation of the role of MRI at 1.5 T in the staging of the initial extension of cancer of the uterine cervix. J Belge Radiol 1991;74(2):85–90.
  37. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, et al. Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. a meta-analysis. JAMA 1997;278(13):1096–1101. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1997.03550130070040.
  38. Choi HJ, Kim SH, Seo SS, et al. MRI for pretreatment lymph node staging in uterine cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187(5):W538–W543. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0263.
  39. Abe Y, Yamashita Y, Namimoto T, et al. Carcinoma of the uterine cervix. High-resolution turbo spin-echo MR imaging with contrast-enhanced dynamic scanning and T2-weighting. Acta Radiol 1998;39(3):322–326. DOI: 10.1080/02841859809172203.
  40. Matsubara M. Clinical significance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluation of the extension of uterine cervical cancer. Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 1993;45(10):1115–1122.
  41. Hong KS, Ju W, Choi HJ, et al. Differential diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of lymph node metastases according to the tumor size in early-stage cervical cancer patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010;20(5):841–846. DOI: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181db5140.
  42. Hope AJ, Saha P, Grigsby PW. FDG-PET in carcinoma of the uterine cervix with endometrial extension. Cancer 2006;106(1):196–200. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21573.
  43. Kim SH, Choi BI, Lee HP, et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR findings. Radiology 1990;175(1):45–51. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.175.1.2315503.
  44. Sironi S, Belloni C, Taccagni L, et al. Invasive carcinoma of the cervix uteri (stage IB-IIB): evaluation using magnetic resonance. Radiol Med 1990;80(3):314–320.
  45. Sironi S, Belloni C, Taccagni GL, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: value of MR imaging in detecting parametrial involvement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;156(4):753–756. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.156.4.2003441.
  46. Brunschwig A. The surgical treatment of cancer of the cervix: stage I and II. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1968;102(1):147–151. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.102.1.147.
  47. Sheu MH, Chang CY, Wang JH, et al. Cervical carcinoma: assessment of parametrial invasion and lymph node metastasis with magnetic resonance imaging. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei) 2000;63(8):634–640.
  48. Popovich MJ, Hricak H, Sugimura K, et al. The role of MR imaging in determining surgical eligibility for pelvic exenteration. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;160(3):525–531. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.160.3.8430546.
  49. Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 1988;166(3):623–631. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.166.3.3340756.
  50. 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. DOI: 10.1016/0360-3016(93)90451-z.
  51. Yang WT, Lam WW, Yu MY, et al. 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. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.175.3.1750759.
  52. Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, et al. MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(6): 1577–1587. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.06.1196.
  53. Chung HH, Kang KW, Cho JY, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in preoperative lymph node detection of uterine cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203(2):156.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010. 02.041.
  54. Narayan K, McKenzie AF, Hicks RJ, et al. Relation between FIGO stage, primary tumor volume, and presence of lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients referred for radiotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003;13(5):657–663. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-00009577-200309000-00014.
  55. Noguchi H, Shiozawa I, Kitahara T, et al. Uterine body invasion of carcinoma of the uterine cervix as seen from surgical specimens. Gynecol Oncol 1988;30(2):173–182. DOI: 10.1016/0090-8258(88)90021-2.
  56. Averette HE, Ford JH, Jr, Dudan RC, et al. Staging of cervical cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1975;18(3):215–232. DOI: 10.1097/00003081-197509000-00023.
  57. 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. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4799.
  58. Iyer RB, Balachandran A, Devine CE. PET/CT and cross sectional imaging of gynecologic malignancy. Cancer Imaging 2007;7 Spec No A(Special issue A):S130–S138. DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2007. 9015.
  59. Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F, et al. Early invasive cervical cancer: MRI and CT predictors of lymphatic metastases in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112(1):95–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.005.
  60. Choi SH, Kim SH, Choi HJ, et al. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: results of prospective study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004;28(5):620–627. DOI: 10.1097/01.rct.0000138007.77725.0a.
  61. Heyman J, Kottmeier HL, Segerdahl CO. An investigation of the reliability of stage-grouping in cancer of the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1953;32(1):65–79. DOI: 10.3109/00016345309157564.
  62. Burghardt E, Hofmann HM, Ebner F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer: a basis for objective classification. Gynecol Oncol 1989;33(1):61–67. DOI: 10.1016/0090-8258(89)90604-5.
  63. Mayr NA, Yuh WTC, Zheng J, et al. Tumor size evaluated by pelvic examination compared with 3-D quantitative analysis in the prediction of outcome for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;39(2):395–404. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(97)00318-0.
  64. Ho CM, Chien TY, Jeng CM, et al. Staging of cervical cancer: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and pelvic examination under anesthesia. J Formos Med Assoc 1992;91(10):982–990.
  65. Hawnaur JM, Johnson RJ, Buckley CH, et al. Staging, volume estimation and assessment of nodal status in carcinoma of the cervix: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with surgical findings. Clin Radiol 1994;49(7):443–452. DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)81738-6.
  66. Kim SH, Choi BI, Han JK, et al. Preoperative staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MRI in 99 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993;17(4):633–640. DOI: 10.1097/00004728-199307000-00022.
  67. Haldemann RC, Krestin GP, Marincek B. Magnetic resonance tomography in malignant genital tumors. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1992;122(19):719–726.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.