Ovarian Cancer

Because of paucity of symptoms in early stages, approximately 60% to 75% of patients with ovarian cancer present with advanced disease.93,114 Ovarian cancer is staged surgically according to the FIGO staging system. The FIGO system reflects the three primary mechanisms of disease spreads of ovarian cancer, including local, peritoneal, and lymphatic.

In most centers, endovaginal ultrasound is the primary imaging modality used for screening for ovarian cancer and evaluation of an adnexal mass. Because most patients with ovarian cancer present with adnexal or pelvic masses and the majority of adnexal and pelvic masses are benign, differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian tumor is clinically important.

In patients with ovarian cancer, imaging can be used to determine the extent of primary disease before surgical staging and debulking. Imaging is also used to assess for recurrence, especially in symptomatic patients. The primary disease can be staged with CT or MRI, which are equivalent for detecting peritoneal metastases.115-118 In a study of 118 women with pelvic malignancies, the sensitivity for peritoneal disease was 92% for CT and 95% for MRI.118

The major role of MRI in evaluation of adnexal masses includes determining if a mass is truly ovarian in origin, to accurately diagnose certain benign lesions, such as dermoid cyst and endometrial cyst, and to more precisely define the internal architecture of ovarian masses. MRI is reported to be a cost-effective next step when the results of the ultrasound are indeterminate.114

On MRI, the presence of solid components or nodules in a cystic tumor, necrosis in a solid tumor, thick, irregular walls or septations, larger lesion size, enhancement of internal structure as well as presence of ascites, peritoneal disease, or adenopathy increase the possibility of malignancy.119 The

figure 31.13. Ovarian cancer. (A) Axial CT of the pelvis obtained after intravenous contrast material injection shows mixed cystic and solid masses in the bilateral adnexae. U, uterus. (B) Coronal reformatted image obtained after intravenous contrast material injection shows cystic ovarian masses abutting the bilateral external iliac veins (short arrows). Large arrow indicates the pubic symphysis. (C) Sagittal reformatted image of the right upper abdomen obtained after intra-

figure 31.13. Ovarian cancer. (A) Axial CT of the pelvis obtained after intravenous contrast material injection shows mixed cystic and solid masses in the bilateral adnexae. U, uterus. (B) Coronal reformatted image obtained after intravenous contrast material injection shows cystic ovarian masses abutting the bilateral external iliac veins (short arrows). Large arrow indicates the pubic symphysis. (C) Sagittal reformatted image of the right upper abdomen obtained after intra-

venous contrast material injection shows thickening of the right hemidiaphragm by tumor deposits along the liver surface (large arrows). Arrowhead indicates a right pleural effusion. (D) Sagittal reformatted image of the left upper abdomen obtained after intravenous contrast material injection shows tumor (T) invading the superior portion of the spleen. Short arrows indicate left hemi-diaphragm. (From Pannu et al.,124 by permission of RadioGraphics.)

venous contrast material injection shows thickening of the right hemidiaphragm by tumor deposits along the liver surface (large arrows). Arrowhead indicates a right pleural effusion. (D) Sagittal reformatted image of the left upper abdomen obtained after intravenous contrast material injection shows tumor (T) invading the superior portion of the spleen. Short arrows indicate left hemi-diaphragm. (From Pannu et al.,124 by permission of RadioGraphics.)

accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of malignancy has been reported to range from 83% to 86% without contrast enhancement and from 78% to 95% with contrast enhancement.

CT is usually performed as it is a rapid test and readily available. The peritoneum, retroperitoneum, and viscera are assessed for metastases. Evaluation includes sites that are difficult to evaluate at surgery, such as the diaphragm, splenic hilum, stomach, lesser sac, liver, mesenteric root, and suprarenal paraaortic nodes (Figure 31.13).120,121 Optimal debulking of disease at sites, such as the bowel mesentery and porta hepatis may also be difficult. With a successful debulk-ing procedure, residual tumor implants are subcentimeter in size. Preoperative localization of the sites of peritoneal metastases and retroperitoneal adenopathy aids in surgical planning. Preoperative imaging also helps identify patients who may benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy to reduce disease volume before surgical debulking. CT and clinical parameters have been used to develop scoring systems to predict the success of surgery.116,120,122

A study performed in the late 1990s on 64 patients presenting with ovarian cancer found that the overall sensitivity of single-detector CT for detecting peritoneal metastases was 85% to 93% and the sensitivity for subcentimeter lesions was 25% to 50%.123 There have been significant improvements in CT technology in the past few years with newer multidetec-tor row scanners replacing older single-detector scanners and increasing number of detector rows. These changes allow thin slices of large volumes of anatomy to be obtained in a few seconds. Thin slices optimize visualization of subcentimeter structures and can be used to generate images in multiple planes to evaluate structures, such as the diaphragm and pelvis (see Figure 31.13).124,125

Patients who are suspected to have recurrent disease based on symptoms or biochemical markers can be imaged with CT, MRI, or PET. Detection of lesions on all modalities is dependent on size. For CT, detection is greater for implants greater than 5 to 10mm than for smaller lesions.123,126 Sensitivity of single-detector CT is more than 50% for detecting implants at most sites, except the small bowel and mesentery, where lesions can be difficult to appreciate because of partial volume averaging.116 Implants are easier to visualize when surrounded by ascites. The sensitivity of multidetector row CT for detecting tumor recurrence is not established. The sensitivity of MRI was 91% for detecting recurrence in 64 women with ovarian cancer.127 Implants less than 2 cm were present in false-negative cases. Peritoneal, mesenteric, and bowel metastases can be effectively detected with MRI.128 Although CT and MRI are usually performed to evaluate patients for recurrence, small implants can be difficult to detect on visceral surfaces by anatomic imaging. The lesions may not be appreciated because of lack of significant contrast difference between tumor and normal viscera. An advantage of functional imaging with PET is that lesions are conspicuous as there is increased uptake in tumor and minimal background activity. The sensitivity of PET for recurrent tumor is higher in patients with suspected relapse compared with those without clinical disease.129 Sensitivities ranging from 80% to 100% have been reported in four series with a total of 113 patients.129-132 However, similar to CT and MRI, lesion detection is dependent on size and is less likely for lesions less than 1 to 2 cm in size than for larger masses.129,130,133,134 Omental carcinomatosis with subcentimeter lesions may not show sufficient uptake to be detected on PET although it is evident on CT.134 In 22 patients with primarily subcentime-ter lesions, including microscopic disease, the sensitivity of PET for detecting tumor recurrence was 10%.135 In a study of 31 patients with a mean lesion size of 1.1cm, the patient-based sensitivity of PET for disease recurrence was 81% and lesion-based sensitivity was 45%.134 The specificity of PET for recurrent ovarian cancer ranges from 42% to 100%.129-132,134,135 Three studies that compared PET findings with surgery found specificities of 93%, 42%, and 50%, respectively.130,134,135 High specificities of 83% and 100% were reported in two studies comparing PET with surgical or clinical follow-up.129,131 Increased uptake can be seen in postsurgical inflammation and in normal bowel and urinary tract.

However, PET may play a role in assessing patients when CT and MRI are negative and tumor markers are rising.131,136-138 It has been suggested as a complementary test to anatomic imaging.131,134,138,139 Sensitivity is improved when both CT and PET are performed.140 There is also improved correlation with surgical findings if the findings on CT and PET are combined.141 Detection of omental implants and malignant retroperitoneal nodes is improved. PET/CT scanners may play a more significant role in the future in evaluating patients with ovarian cancer. CT images as well as PET images are generated and fused for localization of abnormal activity on PET and characterization of malignant potential in masses seen on CT.142,143 However, as currently performed, the CT obtained as part of a PET/CT study is technically limited as the tube current is lower and images are noisier, there is respiratory motion artifact, there is artifact from the patient's arms, and bowel or intravenous contrast are typically not given.

In summary, CT or MRI can be used to detect extraovar-ian spread of primary tumor and recurrent disease. CT is usually performed due to ease of study and ready availability. Lesion conspicuity is high on PET, and it has been suggested as a complementary test to anatomic imaging for detecting tumor spread. The new fused PET/CT scanners combine the benefits of functional and anatomic imaging and have the potential to more accurately determine disease extent. Sub-centimeter lesions are difficult to detect by all imaging modalities.


1. Kenny PJMB. The kidney. In: Lee JKT, Stanley RJ, Heiken JP (eds). Computed Body Tomography with MRI Correlation. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998:1087-1170.

2. Silverman SG, Lee BY, Seltzer SE, Bloom DA, Corless CL, Adams DF. Small (£3 cm) renal masses: correlation of spiral CT features and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163: 597-605.

3. Zagoria RJ, Wolfman NT, Karstaedt N, Hinn GC, Dyer RB, Chen YM. CT features of renal cell carcinoma with emphasis on relation to tumor size. Invest Radiol 1990;25:261-266.

4. Kopka L, Fischer U, Zoeller G, Schmidt C, Ringert RH, Grabbe E. Dual-phase helical CT of the kidney: value of the corti-comedullary and nephrographic phase for evaluation of renal lesions and preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1573-1578.

5. Garant M, Bonaldi VM, Taourel P, Pinsky MF, Bret PM. Enhancement patterns of renal masses during multiphase helical CT acquisitions. Abdom Imaging 1998;23:31-36.

6. Birnbaum BA, Jacobs JE, Ramchandani P. Multiphasic renal CT: comparison of renal mass enhancement during the corti-comedullary and nephrographic phases. Radiology 1996;200: 753-758.

7. Cohan RH, Sherman LS, Korobkin M, Bass JC, Francis IR. Renal masses: assessment of corticomedullary-phase and nephro-graphic-phase CT scans. Radiology 1995;196:445-451.

8. Szolar DH, Kammerhuber F, Altziebler S, et al. Multiphasic helical CT of the kidney: increased conspicuity for detection and characterization of small (<3-cm) renal masses. Radiology 1997; 202:211-217.

9. Catalano C, Fraioli F, Laghi A, et al. High-resolution multi-detector CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients with renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1271-1277.

10. Zeman RK, Zeiberg A, Hayes WS, Silverman PM, Cooper C, Garra BS. Helical CT of renal masses: the value of delayed scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:771-776.

11. Fein AB, Lee JK, Balfe DM, et al. Diagnosis and staging of renal cell carcinoma: a comparison of MR imaging and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;148:749-753.

12. Walter C, Kruessell M, Gindele A, Brochhagen HG, Gossmann A, Landwehr P. Imaging of renal lesions: evaluation of fast MRI and helical CT. Br J Radiol 2003;76:696-703.

13. Ergen FB, Hussain HK, Caoili EM, et al. MRI for preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma using the 1997 TNM classification: comparison with surgical and pathologic staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:217-225.

14. Kreft BP, Muller-Miny H, Sommer T, et al. Diagnostic value of MR imaging in comparison to CT in the detection and differential diagnosis of renal masses: ROC analysis. Eur Radiol 1997; 7:542-547.

15. Semelka RC, Hricak H, Stevens SK, Finegold R, Tomei E, Carroll PR. Combined gadolinium-enhanced and fat-saturation MR imaging of renal masses. Radiology 1991;178:803-809.

16. Narumi Y, Hricak H, Presti JC Jr, et al. MR imaging evaluation of renal cell carcinoma. Abdom Imaging 1997;22:216-225.

17. Welch TJ, LeRoy AJ. Helical and electron beam CT scanning in the evaluation of renal vein involvement in patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997;21:467-471.

18. Choyke PL, Walther MM, Wagner JR, Rayford W, Lyne JC, Linehan WM. Renal cancer: preoperative evaluation with dualphase three-dimensional MR angiography. Radiology 1997;205: 767-771.

19. Laissy JP, Menegazzo D, Debray MP, et al. Renal carcinoma: diagnosis of venous invasion with Gd-enhanced MR venography. Eur Radiol 2000;10:1138-1143.

20. Aslam Sohaib SA, Teh J, Nargund VH, Lumley JS, Hendry WF, Reznek RH. Assessment of tumor invasion of the vena caval wall in renal cell carcinoma cases by magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2002;167:1271-1275.

21. Studer UE, Scherz S, Scheidegger J, et al. Enlargement of regional lymph nodes in renal cell carcinoma is often not due to metastases. J Urol 1990;144:243-245.

22. Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology 1986;158:1-10.

23. Russo P. Renal cell carcinoma: presentation, staging, and surgical treatment. Semin Oncol 2000;27:160-176.

24. Smith PA, Marshall FF, Urban BA, Heath DG, Fishman EK. Three-dimensional CT stereoscopic visualization of renal masses: impact on diagnosis and patient treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1331-1334.

25. Urban BA, Fishman EK. Helical CT with multiplanar display: role in evaluation and clarification of complex renal pathology. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998;22:548-554.

26. Coll DM, Herts BR, Davros WJ, Uzzo RG, Novick AC. Preoper-ative use of 3D volume rendering to demonstrate renal tumors and renal anatomy. Radiographics 2000;20:431-438.

27. Wunderlich H, Reichelt O, Schubert R, Zermann DH, Schubert J. Preoperative simulation of partial nephrectomy with three-dimensional computed tomography. BJU Int 2000;86:777-781.

28. Lechevallier E, Andre M, Barriol D, et al. Fine-needle percutaneous biopsy of renal masses with helical CT guidance. Radiology 2000;216:506-510.

29. Niceforo J, Coughlin BF. Diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma: value of fine-needle aspiration cytology in patients with metastases or contraindications to nephrectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:1303-1305.

30. Torres GMRP. Kidney. In: Stark DDBW (ed). Magnetic Resonance Imaging. St. Louis: Mosby, 1999:517-528.

31. Chen GL, El-Gabry EA, Bagley DH. Surveillance of upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma: the role of ureteroscopy, retrograde pyelography, cytology and urinalysis. J Urol 2000;164:1901-1904.

32. Gatewood OM, Goldman SM, Marshall FF, Siegelman SS. Computerized tomography in the diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of the kidney. J Urol 1982;127:876-887.

33. Wong-You-Cheong JJ, Wagner BJ, Davis CJ Jr. Transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 1998;18:123-142; quiz 148.

34. Breatnach ES, Stanley RJ, Lloyd K. Focal obstructive nephro-gram: an unusual CT appearance of a transitional cell carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1984;8:1019-1022.

35. Pollack HM, Arger PH, Banner MP, Mulhern CB Jr, Coleman BG. Computed tomography of renal pelvic filling defects. Radiology 1981;138:645-651.

36. McCoy JG, Honda H, Reznicek M, Williams RD. Computerized tomography for detection and staging of localized and pathologically defined upper tract urothelial tumors. J Urol 1991;146: 1500-1503.

37. Nyman U, Oldbring J, Aspelin P. CT of carcinoma of the renal pelvis. Acta Radiol 1992;33:31-38.

38. Planz B, George R, Adam G, Jakse G, Planz K. Computed tomography for detection and staging of transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Eur Urol 1995;27:146-150.

39. Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, Uzan E, Rampal M, Coulange C. Value of radiologic examinations in the diagnosis and staging of upper urinary tract tumors. Prog Urol 1994;4:966-973.

40. Millan-Rodriguez F, Palou J, de la Torre-Holguera P, Vayreda-Martija JM, Villavicencio-Mavrich H, Vicente-Rodriguez J. Conventional CT signs in staging transitional cell tumors of the upper urinary tract. Eur Urol 1999;35:318-322.

41. Weeks SM, Brown ED, Brown JJ, Adamis MK, Eisenberg LB, Semelka RC. Transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: staging by MRI. Abdom Imaging 1995;20:365-367.

42. Robinson P, Collins CD, Ryder WD, et al. Relationship of MRI and clinical staging to outcome in invasive bladder cancer treated by radiotherapy. Clin Radiol 2000;55:301-306.

43. Levy DA, Grossman HB. Staging and prognosis of T3b bladder cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 1996;14:56-61.

44. Kim B, Semelka RC, Ascher SM, Chalpin DB, Carroll PR, Hricak H. Bladder tumor staging: comparison of contrast-enhanced CT, Ti- and T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic gadolinium-enhanced imaging, and late gadolinium-enhanced imaging. Radiology 1994;193:239-245.

45. Rholl KS, Lee JK, Heiken JP, Ling D, Glazer HS. Primary bladder carcinoma: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology 1987;163: 117-121.

46. Tanimoto A, Yuasa Y, Imai Y, et al. Bladder tumor staging: comparison of conventional and gadolinium-enhanced dynamic MR imaging and CT. Radiology 1992;185:741-747.

47. Barentsz JO, Jager GJ, Witjes JA, Ruijs JH. Primary staging of urinary bladder carcinoma: the role of MRI and a comparison with CT. Eur Radiol 1996;6:129-133.

48. Hayashi N, Tochigi H, Shiraishi T, Takeda K, Kawamura J. A new staging criterion for bladder carcinoma using gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with an endorectal surface coil: a comparison with ultrasonography. BJU Int 2000; 85:32-36.

49. Lee JKT WA, Semelka RC. Pelvis. In: Lee JKTSS, Stanley RJ, Heiken JP (eds). Computed Body Tomography with MRI Correlation. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998:1209-1274.

50. Barentsz JO, Jager G, Mugler JP III, et al. Staging urinary bladder cancer: value of T1-weighted three-dimensional magnetization prepared-rapid gradient-echo and two-dimensional spin-echo sequences. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:109-115.

51. Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Oosterhof GO, Witjes JA, Ruijs SJ. Pelvic adenopathy in prostatic and urinary bladder carcinoma: MR imaging with a three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetization-prepared-rapid gradient-echo sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1503-1507.

52. Bellin MF, Roy C, Kinkel K, et al. Lymph node metastases: safety and effectiveness of MR imaging with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles: initial clinical experience. Radiology 1998;207:799-808.

53. 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;201:185-193.

54. Bernhardt TM, Schmidl H, Philipp C, Allhoff EP, RappBernhardt U. Diagnostic potential of virtual cystoscopy of the bladder: MRI vs. CT. Preliminary report. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 305-312.

55. Song JH, Francis IR, Platt JF, et al. Bladder tumor detection at virtual cystoscopy. Radiology 2001;218:95-100.

56. Kim JK, Ahn JH, Park T, Ahn HJ, Kim CS, Cho KS. Virtual cystoscopy of the contrast material-filled bladder in patients with gross hematuria. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:763-768.

57. Korobkin M, Francis IR, Kloos RT, Dunnick NR. The incidental adrenal mass. Radiol Clin N Am 1996;34:1037-1054.

58. Mayo-Smith WW, Boland GW, Noto RB, Lee MJ. State-of-the-art adrenal imaging. Radiographics 2001;21:995-1012.

59. Harisinghani MG, Maher MM, Hahn PF, et al. Predictive value of benign percutaneous adrenal biopsies in oncology patients. Clin Radiol 2002;57:898-901.

60. Candel AG, Gattuso P, Reyes CV, Prinz RA, Castelli MJ. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of adrenal masses in patients with extraadrenal malignancy. Surgery (St. Louis) 1993; 114:11321136; discussion 1136-1137.

61. Khafagi FA, Gross MD, Shapiro B, Glazer GM, Francis I, Thompson NW. Clinical significance of the large adrenal mass. Br J Surg 1991;78:828-833.

62. Boland GW, Lee MJ, Gazelle GS, Halpern EF, McNicholas MM, Mueller PR. Characterization of adrenal masses using unen-hanced CT: an analysis of the CT literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:201-204.

63. Dunnick NR, Korobkin M. Imaging of adrenal incidentalomas: current status. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:559-568.

64. Pena CS, Boland GW, Hahn PF, Lee MJ, Mueller PR. Characterization of indeterminate (lipid-poor) adrenal masses: use of washout characteristics at contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology 2000;217:798-802.

65. Korobkin M, Brodeur FJ, Francis IR, Quint LE, Dunnick NR, Londy F. CT time-attenuation washout curves of adrenal adenomas and nonadenomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:747-752.

66. Caoili EM, Korobkin M, Francis IR, et al. Adrenal masses: characterization with combined unenhanced and delayed enhanced CT. Radiology 2002;222:629-633.

67. Mayo-Smith WW, Lee MJ, McNicholas MM, Hahn PF, Boland GW, Saini S. Characterization of adrenal masses (<5 cm) by use of chemical shift MR imaging: observer performance versus quantitative measures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:91-95.

68. Bilbey JH, McLoughlin RF, Kurkjian PS, et al. MR imaging of adrenal masses: value of chemical-shift imaging for distinguishing adenomas from other tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164:637-642.

69. Tsushima Y, Ishizaka H, Matsumoto M. Adrenal masses: differentiation with chemical shift, fast low-angle shot MR imaging. Radiology 1993;186:705-709.

70. Heinz-Peer G, Honigschnabl S, Schneider B, Niederle B, Kaserer K, Lechner G. Characterization of adrenal masses using MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:15-22.

71. Blake MA, Krishnamoorthy SK, Boland GW, et al. Low-density pheochromocytoma on CT: a mimicker of adrenal adenoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1663-1668.

72. Yamada T, Saito H, Moriya T, et al. Adrenal carcinoma with a signal loss on chemical shift magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003;27:606-608.

73. Varghese JC, Hahn PF, Papanicolaou N, Mayo-Smith WW, Gaa JA, Lee MJ. MR differentiation of phaeochromocytoma from other adrenal lesions based on qualitative analysis of T2 relaxation times. Clin Radiol 1997;52:603-606.

74. Barentsz JO, Engelbrecht MR, Witjes JA, de la Rosette JJ, van der Graaf M. MR imaging of the male pelvis. Eur Radiol 1999;9: 1722-1736.

75. Jager GJ, Severens JL, Thornbury JR, de La Rosette JJ, Ruijs SH, Barentsz JO. Prostate cancer staging: should MR imaging be used? A decision analytic approach. Radiology 2000;215:445-451.

76. Ellis JH, Tempany C, Sarin MS, Gatsonis C, Rifkin MD, McNeil BJ. MR imaging and sonography of early prostatic cancer: pathologic and imaging features that influence identification and diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:865-872.

77. Rorvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Albrektsen G, Ersland L, Daehlin L, Haukaas S. MRI with an endorectal coil for staging of clinically localised prostate cancer prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol 1999;9:29-34.

78. Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology 1994;193: 703-709.

79. Bartolozzi C, Menchi I, Lencioni R, et al. Local staging of prostate carcinoma with endorectal coil MRI: correlation with whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Radiol 1996; 6:339-345.

80. Chelsky MJ, Schnall MD, Seidmon EJ, Pollack HM. Use of endorectal surface coil magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer. J Urol 1993;150:391-395.

81. Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, van Lier HJ, Barentsz JO. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2294-2302.

82. Getty DJ, Seltzer SE, Tempany CM, Pickett RM, Swets JA, McNeil BJ. Prostate cancer: relative effects of demographic, clinical, histologic, and MR imaging variables on the accuracy of staging. Radiology 1997;204:471-479.

83. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Schnall M, et al. The impact of the inclusion of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in a multivariate analysis to predict clinically unsuspected extrapros-tatic cancer. Cancer (Phila) 1995;75:2368-2372.

84. Huncharek M, Muscat J. Serum prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of staging abdominal/pelvic computed tomography in newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 1996;21:364-367.

85. Oyen RH, Van Poppel HP, Ameye FE, Van de Voorde WA, Baert AL, Baert LV. Lymph node staging of localized prostatic carcinoma with CT and CT-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: prospective study of 285 patients. Radiology 1994;190:315-322.

86. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2491-2499.

87. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, Narayan P, Carroll P, Nelson SJ. Three-dimensional 1H-MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24-0.7 cm3) spatial resolution. Radiology 1996;198:795-805.

88. Yu KK, Scheidler J, Hricak H, et al. Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1999;213:481-488.

89. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al. Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging: clinicopathologic study. Radiology 1999;213:473-480.

90. Hata N, Jinzaki M, Kacher D, et al. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with surgical navigation software: device validation and feasibility. Radiology 2001;220:263-268.

91. Kooy HM, Cormack RA, Mathiowitz G, Tempany C, D'Amico AV. A software system for interventional magnetic resonance image-guided prostate brachytherapy. Comput Aided Surg 2000; 5:401-413.

92. Boss EA, Barentsz JO, Massuger LF, Boonstra H. The role of MR imaging in invasive cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2000;10: 256-270.

93. Fielding JR. MR imaging of the female pelvis. Radiol Clin N Am 2003;41:179-192.

94. Hricak H, Hamm B, Semelka RC, et al. Carcinoma of the uterus: use of gadopentetate dimeglumine in MR imaging. Radiology 1991;181:95-106.

95. Hawighorst H, Knapstein PG, Weikel W, et al. Cervical carcinoma: comparison of standard and pharmacokinetic MR imaging. Radiology 1996;201:531-539.

96. 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;39:322-326.

97. Van Vierzen PB, Massuger LF, Ruys SH, Barentsz JO. Fast dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging of cervical carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1998;53:183-192.

98. Bipat S, Glas AS, van der Velden J, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91:59-66.

99. Pannu HK, Fishman EK. Evaluation of cervical cancer by computed tomography: current status. Cancer (Phila) 2003;98:2039-2043.

100. Walsh JW, Goplerud DR. Prospective comparison between clinical and CT staging in primary cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1981;137:997-1003.

101. 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;175:759-766.

102. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, Subak L, Segal MR. Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1997;278:1096-1101.

103. Jeong YY, Kang HK, Chung TW, Seo JJ, Park JG. Uterine cervical carcinoma after therapy: CT and MR imaging findings. Radio Graphics 2003;23:969-981; discussion 981.

104. Yamashita Y, Harada M, Torashima M, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of recurrent postoperative cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996;6:167-171.

105. Frei KA, Kinkel K. Staging endometrial cancer: role of magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13:850-855.

106. Hricak H, Rubinstein LV, Gherman GM, Karstaedt N. MR imaging evaluation of endometrial carcinoma: results of an NCI cooperative study. Radiology 1991;179:829-832.

107. Hardesty LA, Sumkin JH, Nath ME, et al. Use of preoperative MR imaging in the management of endometrial carcinoma: cost analysis. Radiology 2000;215:45-49.

108. Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, et al. Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology 1999;212: 711-718.

109. Hricak H, Stern JL, Fisher MR, Shapeero LG, Winkler ML, Lacey CG. Endometrial carcinoma staging by MR imaging. Radiology 1987;162:297-305.

110. 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.

111. Lien HH, Blomlie V, Trope 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: 1221-1223.

112. Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Ichikawa Y, Saida Y, Itai Y. A thickened or indistinct junctional zone on T2-weighted MR images in patients with endometrial carcinoma: pathologic con sideration based on microcirculation. Eur Radiol 2003;13:2038-2045.

113. Utsunomiya D, Notsute S, Hayashida Y, et al. Endometrial carcinoma in adenomyosis: assessment of myometrial invasion on T2-weighted spin-echo and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:399-404.

114. Togashi K. Ovarian cancer: the clinical role of US, CT, and MRI. Eur Radiol 2003;13(suppl 4):L87-L104.

115. Prayer L, Kainz C, Kramer J, et al. CT and MR accuracy in the detection of tumor recurrence in patients treated for ovarian cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993;17:626-632.

116. Forstner R, Hricak H, Occhipinti KA, Powell CB, Frankel SD, Stern JL. Ovarian cancer: staging with CT and MR imaging. Radiology 1995;197:619-626.

117. Kurtz AB, Tsimikas JV, Tempany CM, et al. Diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer: comparative values of Doppler and conventional US, CT, and MR imaging correlated with surgery and histopathologic analysis. Report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 1999;212:19-27.

118. 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;215:761-767.

119. Sohaib SA, Sahdev A, Van Trappen P, Jacobs IJ, Reznek RH. Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1297-1304.

120. Bristow RE, Duska LR, Lambrou NC, et al. A model for predicting surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma using computed tomography. Cancer (Phila) 2000;89: 1532-1540.

121. Forstner R, Chen M, Hricak H. Imaging of ovarian cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995;5:606-613.

122. Meyer JI, Kennedy AW, Friedman R, Ayoub A, Zepp RC. Ovarian carcinoma: value of CT in predicting success of debulking surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:875-878.

123. Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA, et al. Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology 2002;223:495-499.

124. Pannu HK, Bristow RE, Montz FJ, Fishman EK. Multidetector CT of peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer. Radio Graphics 2003;23:687-701.

125. Pannu HK, Horton KM, Fishman EK. Thin section dual-phase multidetector-row computed tomography detection of peritoneal metastases in gynecologic cancers. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003;27:333-340.

126. Buy JN, Moss AA, Ghossain MA, et al. Peritoneal implants from ovarian tumors: CT findings. Radiology 1988;169:691-694.

127. Low RN, Saleh F, Song SY, et al. Treated ovarian cancer: comparison of MR imaging with serum CA-125 level and physical examination: a longitudinal study. Radiology 1999;211:519-528.

128. Low RN, Semelka RC, Worawattanakul S, Alzate GD, Sigeti JS. Extrahepatic abdominal imaging in patients with malignancy: comparison of MR imaging and helical CT, with subsequent surgical correlation. Radiology 1999;210:625-632.

129. Zimny M, Siggelkow W, Schroder W, et al. 2-[Fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2001;83: 310-315.

130. Kubik-Huch RA, Dorffler W, von Schulthess GK, et al. Value of (18F)-FDG positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing primary and recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2000;10:761-767.

131. Torizuka T, Nobezawa S, Kanno T, et al. Ovarian cancer recurrence: role of whole-body positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:797-803.

132. Yen RF, Sun SS, Shen YY, Changlai SP, Kao A. Whole body positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose for the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Anticancer Res 2001;21:3691-3694.

133. Karlan BY, Hawkins R, Hoh C, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose can detect recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1993;51: 175-181.

134. Cho SM, Ha HK, Byun JY, Lee JM, Kim CJ, Nam-Koong SE. Usefulness of FDG PET for assessment of early recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:391-395.

135. Rose PG, Faulhaber P, Miraldi F, Abdul-Karim FW. Positive emission tomography for evaluating a complete clinical response in patients with ovarian or peritoneal carcinoma: correlation with second-look laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2001;82:17-21.

136. Bristow RE, Simpkins F, Pannu HK, Fishman EK, Montz FJ. Positron emission tomography for detecting clinically occult surgically resectable metastatic ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2002;85:196-200.

137. Bristow RE, del Carmen MG, Pannu HK, et al. Clinically occult recurrent ovarian cancer: patient selection for secondary cytore-ductive surgery using combined PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 90:519-528.

138. Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T, et al. Clinical value of positron emission tomography with FDG for recurrent ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1449-1454.

139. Woodward PJ, Hosseinzadeh K, Saenger JS. From the archives of the AFIP: radiologic staging of ovarian carcinoma with pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2004;24:225-246.

140. Turlakow A, Yeung HW, Salmon AS, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1407-1412.

141. Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, et al. Incremental benefits of FDG positron emission tomography over CT alone for the preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:227-233.

142. Pannu HK, Bristow RE, Cohade C, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. PET-CT in recurrent ovarian cancer: initial observations. Radio Graphics 2004;24:209-223.

143. Makhija S, Howden N, Edwards R, Kelley J, Townsend DW, Meltzer CC. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging for the detection of recurrent ovarian and fallopian tube carcinoma: a retrospective review. Gynecol Oncol 2002;85:53-58.

10 Ways To Fight Off Cancer

10 Ways To Fight Off Cancer

Learning About 10 Ways Fight Off Cancer Can Have Amazing Benefits For Your Life The Best Tips On How To Keep This Killer At Bay Discovering that you or a loved one has cancer can be utterly terrifying. All the same, once you comprehend the causes of cancer and learn how to reverse those causes, you or your loved one may have more than a fighting chance of beating out cancer.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment