Uterus: Malignant Disease
Yulia Lakhman1

1Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Synopsis

This presentation will highlight the value of MRI for risk-stratification and appropriate treatment selection in patients with new diagnosis of endometrial and cervical cancer. It will also illustrate the central role of MRI prior to fertility sparing treatments in patients with endometrial and cervical cancer, respectively. At the end of the presentation, the attendees will be able to recognize and report clinically pertinent imaging findings when evaluating patients with new diagnosis of endometrial or cervical cancer. This information is important for the radiologist to serve as an effective consultant to the referring physician.

Target Audience

Target audiences for this presentation are general and sub-specialty radiologists, radiology fellows/residents, MR technologists, and imaging scientists who would like to refresh and sharpen their diagnostic imaging skills of using MR imaging to evaluate patients with various types of malignant diseases of the uterus.

Discussion

Endometrial Cancer:

Endometrial cancer is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract and the fourth most common cancer among women in developed countries [Global Cancer Facts & Figures 3rd Edition. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2015] (1). The main risk factor for endometrial cancer is endogenous and exogenous estrogen exposure. The incidence of endometrial cancer in developed countries is on the rise because of an aging population, epidemic of obesity, and growing prevalence of diabetes mellitus, all associated with increased estrogenic exposure (2).

Abnormal uterine bleeding is the most common presenting symptom of endometrial cancer. It is observed in up to 90% of patients (usually after menopause) and is evaluated further with pelvic ultrasonography (US) and endometrial biopsy. In postmenopausal women, endometrial thickness cutoff of 5 mm on pelvic US produced the sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 54% for endometrial cancer compared with 98% and 35%, respectively, when the cutoff of 3 mm was used (3).

Presence of regional lymph node metastasis is the most important prognostic factor for patients with endometrial cancer (4-6). The likelihood of nodal metastasis is determined by tumor grade and histologic subtype, depth of myometrial invasion, cervical stromal invasion, and lymphovascular space involvement (7-9). While tumor grade and histologic subtype are available from the initial biopsy specimens, endometrial biopsy and final surgical pathology specimens are discordant in up to 30% because only a small fraction of tumor is sampled during the biopsy (10). Lymphovascular space invasion is the best predictor of lymph node status, but this information is not available until after the surgery (11).

The role of preoperative evaluation is to risk-stratify the patients in order to establish the risk of recurrence and to inform the surgical management. MR imaging is the most accurate imaging modality for preoperative staging of patients with endometrial cancer and it has high interobserver agreement (12). MR imaging can provide the surgeon with the information about the local extent of disease including the depth of myometrial invasion, cervical stromal invasion, extra-uterine extension, and lymph node status (12). In young patients with endometrial cancer who desire to preserve their fertility, MRI is useful to establish the absence of myometrial invasion. Absence of myometrial invasion is one of the several eligibility criteria that should be met prior to the initiation of conservative management for endometrial cancer (13).

Suggested MRI Protocol:

· Large field-of-view axial T1W and T2WI to include para-aortic regions

· Small field-of-view high resolution sagittal T2WI

· Small field-of-view high resolution axial oblique T2WI perpendicular to the uterine corpus

· Sagittal and axial oblique DWI to match T2WI

· Sagittal and axial oblique dynamic contrast-enhanced images pre and post contrast administration

Pertinent Imaging Findings to Include In the Radiology Report:

· Tumor size

· Depth of myometrial invasion (any myometrial invasion if the patient is being considered for fertility preserving treatment)

· Cervical stromal invasion

· Uterine serosal, vaginal, and adnexal involvement

· Involvement of the bladder and rectum

· Pelvic and para-aortic lymph node status

· Distant metastasis

Cervical Cancer:

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer and the fourth leading cause of death among women worldwide [Global Cancer Facts & Figures 3rd Edition. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2015]. The highest incidence rates of cervical cancer are in Central and South America and sub-Saharan Africa. Cervical cancer is the first malignancy where direct relation between a viral infection and cancer was proposed (14). It is thought that a woman must be infected with HPV before she develops cervical cancer and two-thirds of all cervical cancers are caused by HPV 16 and 18 (15, 16).

In developed countries, most cervical cancers are diagnosed in asymptomatic patients at the time of routine screening with a Pap smear. Symptomatic patients usually present with abnormal vaginal bleeding and occasional vaginal discomfort or malodorous discharge.

Cervical cancer arises from the squamocolumnar junction which migrates over the years form the ectocervix in young women into the endocervical canal in older women. Therefore, exophytic tumors are typical for young women while endophytic tumors are more characteristic for older women.

Squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma are the two most common histologic subtypes of cervical cancer accounting for 69% and 25% of cases, respectively [Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2004. National Cancer Institute; Bethesda, MD 2007]. The incidence of adenocarcinoma is on a rise in the more developed countries because adenocarcinoma in situ (the precursor lesion) is detected less efficiently by Pap-smear screening compared to preinvasive squamous lesions (squamous dysplasia and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN).

Cervical cancer is most commonly staged based on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) system, last revised in 2009 (17). The FIGO staging of cervical cancer is clinical and does not rely on either surgical or pathologic findings. This allows uniformity of staging for all patients worldwide, which is of particular importance because cervical cancer is most prevalent in countries where surgical and diagnostic resources are limited. The FIGO staging committee has acknowledged the limitations of clinical staging and, where available, has incorporated cross-sectional imaging into the initial assessment and treatment planning of patients with cervical cancer (17).

MR imaging is central to risk-stratify patients with cervical cancer and to inform treatment decisions. MR imaging can evaluate such important prognostic factors as tumor size, parametrial invasion, pelvic sidewall involvement, and lymph node metastasis. MRI can help to distinguish early stage disease (up to 4cm), which is treated surgically, from early stage bulky disease (greater than 4cm) and locally advanced disease, which are treated with definitive combined chemotherapy and radiation (12, 18).

MRI is also critical to assess the eligibility for fertility sparing procedures in patients with early-stage cervical cancer who desire fertility preservation. MRI can determine maximal tumor size, tumor-to-internal cervical os distance, depth of cervical stromal invasion, presence of parametrial invasion, and lymph node status (19).

Suggested MRI Protocol:

· Large field-of-view axial T1W and T2WI to include para-aortic regions

· Small field-of-view high resolution sagittal T2WI

· Small field-of-view high resolution axial oblique T2WI perpendicular to the cervix

· Sagittal and axial oblique DWI to match T2WI

· Sagittal and axial oblique dynamic contrast-enhanced images pre and post intravenous contrast administration

Pertinent Imaging Findings to Include In the Radiology Report:

· Tumor size

· If considered for fertility preservation, tumor-to-internal cervical os distance

· Tumor extension into the uterus and vagina

· Parametrial extension

· Presence of hydronephrosis or pelvic sidewall involvement

· Involvement of the bladder or rectum

· Pelvic and para-aortic lymph node status

· Distant metastasis

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgement found.

References

1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-86.

2. Morice P, Leary A, Creutzberg C, Abu-Rustum N, Darai E. Endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2015.

3. Timmermans A, Opmeer BC, Khan KS, et al. Endometrial thickness measurement for detecting endometrial cancer in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2010;116(1):160-7.

4. DiSaia PJ, Creasman WT, Boronow RC, Blessing JA. Risk factors and recurrent patterns in Stage I endometrial cancer. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 1985;151(8):1009-15.

5. Mariani A, Webb MJ, Rao SK, Lesnick TG, Podratz KC. Significance of pathologic patterns of pelvic lymph node metastases in endometrial cancer. Gynecologic oncology. 2001;80(2):113-20.

6. Greven KM, Lanciano RM, Corn B, Case D, Randall ME. Pathologic stage III endometrial carcinoma. Prognostic factors and patterns of recurrence. Cancer. 1993;71(11):3697-702.

7. Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, et al. Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstetrics and gynecology. 1984;63(6):825-32.

8. Mariani A, Webb MJ, Keeney GL, Lesnick TG, Podratz KC. Surgical stage I endometrial cancer: predictors of distant failure and death. Gynecologic oncology. 2002;87(3):274-80.

9. Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer. 1987;60(8 Suppl):2035-41.

10. Eltabbakh GH, Shamonki J, Mount SL. Surgical stage, final grade, and survival of women with endometrial carcinoma whose preoperative endometrial biopsy shows well-differentiated tumors. Gynecologic oncology. 2005;99(2):309-12.

11. Bendifallah S, Canlorbe G, Raimond E, et al. A clue towards improving the European Society of Medical Oncology risk group classification in apparent early stage endometrial cancer? Impact of lymphovascular space invasion. British journal of cancer. 2014;110(11):2640-6.

12. Sala E, Rockall AG, Freeman SJ, Mitchell DG, Reinhold C. The added role of MR imaging in treatment stratification of patients with gynecologic malignancies: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiology. 2013;266(3):717-40.

13. Burke WM, Orr J, Leitao M, et al. Endometrial cancer: a review and current management strategies: part II. Gynecologic oncology. 2014;134(2):393-402.

14. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. The Journal of pathology. 1999;189(1):12-9.

15. Waggoner SE. Cervical cancer. Lancet. 2003;361(9376):2217-25.

16. Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, Rodriguez AC, Wacholder S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2007;370(9590):890-907.

17. Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2009;105(2):107-8.

18. Haie-Meder C, Morice P, Castiglione M. Cervical cancer: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO. 2009;20 Suppl 4:27-8.

19. Noel P, Dube M, Plante M, St-Laurent G. Early cervical carcinoma and fertility-sparing treatment options: MR imaging as a tool in patient selection and a follow-up modality. Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2014;34(4):1099-119.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
0000