Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Current Status of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Malignant Uterine Neoplasms: A Review

  • Yu-Ting Huang (Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Imaging Core Laboratory, Institute for Radiological Research, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou) ;
  • Yen-Ling Huang (Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Imaging Core Laboratory, Institute for Radiological Research, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou) ;
  • Koon-Kwan Ng (Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Imaging Core Laboratory, Institute for Radiological Research, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou) ;
  • Gigin Lin (Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Imaging Core Laboratory, Institute for Radiological Research, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou)
  • Received : 2018.02.08
  • Accepted : 2018.07.17
  • Published : 2019.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we summarize the clinical role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of patients with malignant uterine neoplasms, including leiomyosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma, adenosarcoma, uterine carcinosarcoma, and endometrial cancer, with emphasis on the challenges and disadvantages. MRI plays an essential role in patients with uterine malignancy, for the purpose of tumor detection, primary staging, and treatment planning. MRI has advanced in scope beyond the visualization of the many aspects of anatomical structures, including diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast enhancement-MRI, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Emerging technologies coupled with the use of artificial intelligence in MRI are expected to lead to progressive improvement in case management of malignant uterine neoplasms.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We would like to express sincere gratitude to patients and their families who inspire and motivate us. We are indebted to our colleagues in Departments of Pathology, Nuclear Medicine, Gynecology Oncology and Radiation Oncology, for their in-depth discussions on weekly multidisciplinary tumor board.

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30 https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21442
  2. Global Cancer Observatory. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) web site. http://globocan.iarc.fr/. Published 2014. Accessed May 11, 2018
  3. Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH. WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs, Volume 6, 4th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014:141-145
  4. D'Angelo E, Prat J. Uterine sarcomas: a review. Gynecol Oncol 2010;116:131-139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.09.023
  5. Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Cho KR, et al. Uterine neoplasms, Version 1.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018;16:170-199 https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.0006
  6. Patel-Lippmann K, Robbins JB, Barroilhet L, Anderson B, Sadowski EA, Boyum J. MR imaging of cervical cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2017;25:635-649 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2017.03.007
  7. 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;266:717-740 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120315
  8. Padhani AR, Koh DM, Collins DJ. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cancer: current status and research directions. Radiology 2011;261:700-718 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110474
  9. Leach MO, Morgan B, Tofts PS, Buckley DL, Huang W, Horsfield MA, et al.; Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres Imaging Network Steering Committee. Imaging vascular function for early stage clinical trials using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1451-1464 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2446-x
  10. Goto A, Takeuchi S, Sugimura K, Maruo T. Usefulness of Gd-DTPA contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI and serum determination of LDH and its isozymes in the differential diagnosis of leiomyosarcoma from degenerated leiomyoma of the uterus. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2002;12:354-361 https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-00009577-200207000-00005
  11. Lin G, Lin YC, Wu RC, Yang LY, Lu HY, Tsai SY, et al. Developing and validating a multivariable prediction model to improve the diagnostic accuracy in determination of cervical versus endometrial origin of uterine adenocarcinomas: a prospective MR study combining diffusion-weighted imaging and spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;47:1654-1666 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25899
  12. Cornfeld D, Israel G, Martel M, Weinreb J, Schwartz P, McCarthy S. MRI appearance of mesenchymal tumors of the uterus. Eur J Radiol 2010;74:241-249 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.005
  13. Parker WH, Fu YS, Berek JS. Uterine sarcoma in patients operated on for presumed leiomyoma and rapidly growing leiomyoma. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:414-418
  14. Giuntoli RL 2nd, Metzinger DS, DiMarco CS, Cha SS, Sloan JA, Keeney GL, et al. Retrospective review of 208 patients with leiomyosarcoma of the uterus: prognostic indicators, surgical management, and adjuvant therapy. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:460-469 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00137-9
  15. Wu TI, Yen TC, Lai CH. Clinical presentation and diagnosis of uterine sarcoma, including imaging. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2011;25:681-689 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2011.07.002
  16. Lakhman Y, Veeraraghavan H, Chaim J, Feier D, Goldman DA, Moskowitz CS, et al. Differentiation of uterine leiomyosarcoma from atypical leiomyoma: diagnostic accuracy of qualitative MR imaging features and feasibility of texture analysis. Eur Radiol 2017;27:2903-2915 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4623-9
  17. Shah SH, Jagannathan JP, Krajewski K, O'Regan KN, George S, Ramaiya NH. Uterine sarcomas: then and now. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:213-223 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7287
  18. Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Okamoto Y, Yoshikawa H. Smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential and leiomyosarcomas of the uterus: MR findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:998-1007 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20207
  19. Thomassin-Naggara I, Dechoux S, Bonneau C, Morel A, Rouzier R, Carette MF, et al. How to differentiate benign from malignant myometrial tumours using MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2013;23:2306-2314 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2819-9
  20. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, Morisawa N, Fujimoto K, Mikami Y, et al. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiating uterine sarcomas from benign leiomyomas. Eur Radiol 2008;18:723-730 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0787-7
  21. Namimoto T, Yamashita Y, Awai K, Nakaura T, Yanaga Y, Hirai T, et al. Combined use of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted 3-T MR imaging for differentiating uterine sarcomas from benign leiomyomas. Eur Radiol 2009;19:2756-2764 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1471-x
  22. Ueda H, Togashi K, Konishi I, Kataoka ML, Koyama T, Fujiwara T, et al. Unusual appearances of uterine leiomyomas: MR imaging findings and their histopathologic backgrounds. Radiographics 1999;19 Spec No:S131-S145 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.19.suppl_1.g99oc04s131
  23. Hricak H, Tscholakoff D, Heinrichs L, Fisher MR, Dooms GC, Reinhold C, et al. Uterine leiomyomas: correlation of MR, histopathologic findings, and symptoms. Radiology 1986;158:385-391 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.158.2.3753623
  24. Lin G, Yang LY, Huang YT, Ng KK, Ng SH, Ueng SH, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI in the differentiation between uterine leiomyosarcoma / smooth muscle tumor with uncertain malignant potential and benign leiomyoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;43:333-342 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24998
  25. Li HM, Liu J, Qiang JW, Zhang H, Zhang GF, Ma F. Diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating uterine leiomyosarcoma from degenerated leiomyoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2017;41:599-606 https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000565
  26. Sato K, Yuasa N, Fujita M, Fukushima Y. Clinical application of diffusion-weighted imaging for preoperative differentiation between uterine leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:368.e1-e368.e8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.12.028
  27. Trope CG, Abeler VM, Kristensen GB. Diagnosis and treatment of sarcoma of the uterus. A review. Acta Oncol 2012;51:694-705 https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2012.689111
  28. Tse KY, Crawford R, Ngan HY. Staging of uterine sarcomas. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2011;25:733-749 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2011.05.011
  29. Gadducci A, Cosio S, Romanini A, Genazzani AR. The management of patients with uterine sarcoma: a debated clinical challenge. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2008;65:129-142 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2007.06.011
  30. Tirumani SH, Ojili V, Shanbhogue AK, Fasih N, Ryan JG, Reinhold C. Current concepts in the imaging of uterine sarcoma. Abdom Imaging 2013;38:397-411 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9919-x
  31. Furukawa R, Akahane M, Yamada H, Kiryu S, Sato J, Komatsu S, et al. Endometrial stromal sarcoma located in the myometrium with a low-intensity rim on T2-weighted images: report of three cases and literature review. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31:975-979 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22126
  32. Koyama T, Togashi K, Konishi I, Kobayashi H, Ueda H, Kataoka ML, et al. MR imaging of endometrial stromal sarcoma: correlation with pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:767-772 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.173.3.10470920
  33. Ueda M, Otsuka M, Hatakenaka M, Sakai S, Ono M, Yoshimitsu K, et al. MR imaging findings of uterine endometrial stromal sarcoma: differentiation from endometrial carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2001;11:28-33 https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300000541
  34. Boskovic V, Bozanovic T, Ljubic A, Likic-Ladjevic I, Janjic T, Milicevic S. Endometrial stromal sarcoma with intracaval extension at initial presentation. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2013;34:280-281
  35. Huang YL, Huang YT, Ng KK, Lai CH, Lin G. Differentiating low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma and undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma by using magnetic resonance imaging, Abstract No. ESGO7-0441. Proceeding of International Meeting of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology;2017 November 4-7;Vienna, Austria
  36. Santos P, Cunha TM. Uterine sarcomas: clinical presentation and MRI features. Diagn Interv Radiol 2015;21:4-9 https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2014.14053
  37. Arend R, Bagaria M, Lewin SN, Sun X, Deutsch I, Burke WM, et al. Long-term outcome and natural history of uterine adenosarcomas. Gynecol Oncol 2010;119:305-308 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.07.001
  38. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Yoshida S, Kudo E, Bando Y, Hasebe H, et al. Adenosarcoma of the uterus: magnetic resonance imaging characteristics. Clin Imaging 2009;33:244-247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2008.11.003
  39. Yoshizako T, Wada A, Kitagaki H, Ishikawa N, Miyazaki K. MR imaging of uterine adenosarcoma: case report and literature review. Magn Reson Med Sci 2011;10:251-254 https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.10.251
  40. Barral M, Place V, Dautry R, Bendavid S, Cornelis F, Foucher R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging features of uterine sarcoma and mimickers. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017;42:1762-1772 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1076-9
  41. Artioli G, Wabersich J, Ludwig K, Gardiman MP, Borgato L, Garbin F. Rare uterine cancer: carcinosarcomas. Review from histology to treatment. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2015;94:98-104 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.10.013
  42. Arend R, Doneza JA, Wright JD. Uterine carcinosarcoma. Curr Opin Oncol 2011;23:531-536 https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0b013e328349a45b
  43. Menczer J. Review of recommended treatment of uterine carcinosarcoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2015;16:53
  44. Lewin SN. Revised FIGO staging system for endometrial cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2011;54:215-218 https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e3182185baa
  45. Beddy P, Moyle P, Kataoka M, Yamamoto AK, Joubert I, Lomas D, 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;262:530-537 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110984
  46. Lin G, Ng KK, Chang CJ, Wang JJ, Ho KC, Yen TC, et al. Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted 3.0-T MR imaging--initial experience. Radiology 2009;250:784-792 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2503080874
  47. Bharwani N, Newland A, Tunariu N, Babar S, Sahdev A, Rockall AG, et al. MRI appearances of uterine malignant mixed mullerian tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:1268-1275 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4419
  48. Genever AV, Abdi S. Can MRI predict the diagnosis of endometrial carcinosarcoma? Clin Radiol 2011;66:621-624 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2011.02.008
  49. Tanaka YO, Tsunoda H, Minami R, Yoshikawa H, Minami M. Carcinosarcoma of the uterus: MR findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:434-439 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21469
  50. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M. Carcinosarcoma of the uterus: MRI findings including diffusion-weighted imaging and MR spectroscopy. Acta Radiol 2016;57:1277-1284 https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115626475
  51. Kato H, Kanematsu M, Furui T, Imai A, Hirose Y, Kondo H, et al. Carcinosarcoma of the uterus: radiologic-pathologic correlations with magnetic resonance imaging including diffusion-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2008;26:1446-1450 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2008.04.003
  52. Hernandez Mateo P, Mendez Fernandez R, Serrano Tamayo E. Uterine sarcoma vs adenocarcinoma: can MRI distinguish between them? Radiologia 2016;58:199-206 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rx.2015.10.003
  53. Huang YT, Chang CB, Yeh CJ, Lin G, Huang HJ, Wang CC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 3.0T diffusion-weighted MRI for patients with uterine carcinosarcoma: assessment of tumor extent and lymphatic metastasis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;48:622-631 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25981
  54. Smith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K, Feldstein VA, Subak L, Scheidler J, Segal M, et al. Endovaginal ultrasound to exclude endometrial cancer and other endometrial abnormalities. JAMA 1998;280:1510-1517 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.17.1510
  55. Felix AS, Weissfeld JL, Stone RA, Bowser R, Chivukula M, Edwards RP, et al. Factors associated with Type I and Type II endometrial cancer. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21:1851-1856 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-010-9612-8
  56. Amant F, Mirza MR, Koskas M, Creutzberg CL. Cancer of the corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015;131 Suppl 2:S96-S104 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.005
  57. Creasman W. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105:109
  58. Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, Segal MR, Lu Y, Powell CB, et al. Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology 1999;212:711-718 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.212.3.r99au29711
  59. Fujii S, Kido A, Baba T, Fujimoto K, Daido S, Matsumura N, et al. Subendometrial enhancement and peritumoral enhancement for assessing endometrial cancer on dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:581-589 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.01.004
  60. Andreano A, Rechichi G, Rebora P, Sironi S, Valsecchi MG, Galimberti S. MR diffusion imaging for preoperative staging of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2014;24:1327-1338 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3139-4
  61. Ota T, Hori M, Onishi H, Sakane M, Tsuboyama T, Tatsumi M, et al. Preoperative staging of endometrial cancer using reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 2017;27:5225-5235 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4922-9
  62. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M. Evaluating myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: comparison of reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci 2018;17:28-34 https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2016-0128
  63. Bhosale P, Ma J, Iyer R, Ramalingam P, Wei W, Soliman P, et al. Feasibility of a reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted (rFOV) sequence in assessment of myometrial invasion in patients with clinical FIGO stage I endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;43:316-324 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25001
  64. Eskander RN, Randall LM, Berman ML, Tewari KS, Disaia PJ, Bristow RE. Fertility preserving options in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:103-110 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.01.025
  65. Lin G, Huang YT, Chao A, Ng KK, Yang LY, Ng SH, et al. Influence of menopausal status on diagnostic accuracy of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 3 T. Clin Radiol 2015;70:1260-1268 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.097
  66. Turan T, Hizli D, Yilmaz SS, Gundogdu B, Boran N, Tulunay G, et al. What is the impact of cervical invasion on lymph node metastasis in patients with stage IIIC endometrial cancer? Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;285:1119-1124 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2030-7
  67. Haldorsen IS, Berg A, Werner HM, Magnussen IJ, Helland H, Salvesen OO, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging performs better than endocervical curettage for preoperative prediction of cervical stromal invasion in endometrial carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol 2012;126:413-418 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.05.009
  68. Luomaranta A, Leminen A, Loukovaara M. Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of high-risk features of endometrial carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015;25:837-842 https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000194
  69. Freeman SJ, Aly AM, Kataoka MY, Addley HC, Reinhold C, Sala E. The revised FIGO staging system for uterine malignancies: implications for MR imaging. Radiographics 2012;32:1805-1827 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.326125519
  70. Lin G, Huang YT, Chao A, Lin YC, Yang LY, Wu RC, et al. Endometrial cancer with cervical stromal invasion: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging at 3T. Eur Radiol 2017;27:1867-1876 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4583-0
  71. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, Umeoka S, Mikami Y, Fujii S, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:682-687 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20997
  72. Nougaret S, Reinhold C, Alsharif SS, Addley H, Arceneau J, Molinari N, et al. Endometrial cancer: combined MR volumetry and diffusion-weighted imaging for assessment of myometrial and lymphovascular invasion and tumor grade. Radiology 2015;276:797-808 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.15141212
  73. Cao K, Gao M, Sun YS, Li YL, Sun Y, Gao YN, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of diffusion weighted MRI in endometrial carcinoma-Relationship with local invasiveness. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:1926-1930 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.04.019
  74. Shih IL, Yen RF, Chen CA, Chen BB, Wei SY, Chang WC, et al. Standardized uptake value and apparent diffusion coefficient of endometrial cancer evaluated with integrated whole-body PET/MR: correlation with pathological prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:1723-1732 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24932
  75. Zhang J, Cai S, Li C, Sun X, Han X, Yang C, et al. Can magnetic resonance spectroscopy differentiate endometrial cancer? Eur Radiol 2014;24:2552-2560 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3237-3
  76. Han X, Kang J, Zhang J, Xiu J, Huang Z, Yang C, et al. Can the signal-to-noise ratio of choline in magnetic resonance spectroscopy reflect the aggressiveness of endometrial cancer? Acad Radiol 2015;22:453-459 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.12.010
  77. Ueno Y, Forghani B, Forghani R, Dohan A, Zeng XZ, Chamming's F, et al. Endometrial carcinoma: MR imaging-based texture model for preoperative risk stratification-A preliminary analysis. Radiology 2017;284:748-757 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161950
  78. Brown AP, Gaffney DK, Dodson MK, Soisson AP, Belnap TW, Alleman K, et al. Survival analysis of endometrial cancer patients with positive lymph nodes. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013;23:861-868 https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182915c3e
  79. Creasman WT, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Quinn MA, Beller U, Benedet JL, et al. Carcinoma of the corpus uteri. FIGO 26th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;95 Suppl 1:S105-S143 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(06)60031-3
  80. ASTEC study group, Kitchener 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;373:125-136 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61766-3
  81. Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, Alberto Lissoni A, Signorelli M, Scambia G, et al. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1707-1716 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn397
  82. 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;375:1165-1172 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62002-X
  83. Eggemann H, Ignatov T, Kaiser K, Burger E, Costa SD, Ignatov A. Survival advantage of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2016;142:1051-1060 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-015-2109-9
  84. Lin G, Ho KC, Wang JJ, Ng KK, Wai YY, Chen YT, 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;28:128-135 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21412
  85. Park JY, Kim EN, Kim DY, Suh DS, Kim JH, Kim YM, 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;108:486-492 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.11.044
  86. Lai CH, Lin G, Yen TC, Liu FY. Molecular imaging in the management of gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2014;135:156-162 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.07.092
  87. Lee HJ, Park JY, Lee JJ, Kim MH, Kim DY, Suh DS, et al. Comparison of MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the preoperative evaluation of uterine carcinosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2016;140:409-414 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.009
  88. Stecco A, Buemi F, Cassara A, Matheoud R, Sacchetti GM, Arnulfo A, et al. Comparison of retrospective PET and MRI-DWI (PET/MRI-DWI) image fusion with PET/CT and MRI-DWI in detection of cervical and endometrial cancer lymph node metastases. Radiol Med 2016;121:537-545 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0626-5