Медицинская литература. Новинки

 

 

 

 

 

 

Клинико-диагностические аспекты магнитно-резонансного стадирования рака шейки матки

Вы можете загрузить полный текст статьи в формате pdf

Стадирование является важнейшим этапом обследования больных раком шейки матки (РШМ), так как позволяет выбрать метод лечения и определить прогноз заболевания. В последнее время клиническое стадирование все чаще дополняют томографическими методами (КТ и МРТ). Это обусловлено способностью томографических методов, особенно МРТ, улучшить оценку анатомических структур таза, вовлекаемых в опухолевый процесс при распространении РШМ. В данной работе обсуждаются клиническое значение МРТ-стадирования РШМ, методические особенности проведения МРТ таза при стадировании РШМ и МРкритерии оценки распространенности процесса у больных РШМ

Ключевые слова:
рак шейки матки, МРТ-стадирование, методические особенности.

Литература:
1. Amendola M.F., Hricak H., Mitchell D.G. et al Utilization of
Diagnostic Studies in the Pretreatmtnt evaluation of
Invasive Cervical Cancer in the Unit States: Results of
Intergroup Protocol ACRIN 6651/GOG 183. J. Clin. Oncol.
2005; 23: 7454–7459.
2. Toidae T., Kodaira T., Uno T. et al. Patterns of pretreatment
Diagnostic Assssment and Staging for Patient with
Cervical Cancer (19992001): Patterns of Care Study in
Japan. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008; 38(1): 26–30.
3. Березовская Т.П. Магнитнорезонансная томография
в стадировании рака шейки матки. Вопр. онкол. 2003;
49(2): 227–231.
4. Sala E., Wakely S., Senior E., Lomas D. MRI of Malignant
Neoplasms of the Uterine Corpus and Cervix. Am. J.
Roentgol. 2007; 188(6): 1577–1587.
5. Whitten C.R., DeSouza N.M. Magnetic resonance imaging
of uterine malignancies. Top Magn. Reson. Imaging 2006;
17(6): 365–377.
6. Akni O., Mironov S., PanditTaskar N., Hann L.E. Imaging
of urerine cancer. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2007; 45(1):
167–182.
7. Koyama T., Tamai., Togashi K. Staging of carcinoma of the
uterine cervix and endometrium. Eur. Radiol. 2007; 17(8):
2009–2019.
8. Hricak H., Gatsonis C., Chi D.S. Role of Imaging in
Pretreatment Evaluation of Early Invasive Cervical Cancer:
Results of the Intergroup Study American College of
Radiology Imaging Network 6651 – Gynecologic Group
183. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005; 23: 9329–9337.
9. Chan Y.M., Luesley D.M. Screening, diagnosis, and staging of cervical cancer. Gynecologic Cancer: Controversies
in Management/ Ed Gershenson D.M., McGuire W.P.,
Gore M. et al. Philadelphia PA, Elsevier Churchill
Livingstone; 2004: 31–45.
10. Van Nagell J.R., Roddick J.W.Ir., Lowin D.M. The staging
of cervical cancer: inevitable discrepancies between clinical staging and pathologic findings. Am. J. Obstet.
Gynecol. 1971; 110: 973–977.
11. Mandic A., Novacovic P., Mihajlovich O. et al. Clinical
Staging and histopathological finding after radical hysterectomy in FIGO stage IIB cervical cancer. J. BUON.
2008; 13: 51–54.
12. Hricak H., Yu K.K. Radiology in invasive cervical cancer.
Am. J. Roentgol. 1996; 167: 1101–1108.
13. Ашрафян Л.А., Антонова И.Б., Алешикова О.И. и др.
Диагностические критерии и факторы прогноза
эффективности неоадъювантной химиотерапии местно-распространенного рака шейки матки (IIb-IIIb стадии). Опухоли женской репродуктивной системы.
2007; 4: 63–71.
14. Sethi T.K., Bhalla N.K., Jena A.N. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in carcinoma cervix – Does it have a prognostic relevance. J. Cancer Res. Ther. 2005; 1(2):
103–107.
15. Kim H., Kim W., Lee M. et al. Tumor volume and uterine
body invasion assessed by MRI for prediction of outcome
in cervical carcinoma treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Jpn. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 37(11):
858–866.
16. Березовская Т.П., Шавладзе З.Н., Прошин А.А. и др.
Проспективное исследование зависимости между непосредственными/ближайшими результатами лучевого лечения больных раком шейки матки и объемом
опухоли, определенным с помощью МРТ и УЗИ: Материалы научной конференции “От лучей Рентгена –
к инновациям XXI века”. СПб.; 2008. 73.
17. Naroyan K., Fisher R.J., Bernshaw D. Patterns of failure
and prognostic factor analyses in locally advanced cervical cancer patients staged by magnetic resonance imaging and treated with curative intent. Int. J. Gynecol.
Cancer. 2008; 18: 525–533.
18. Mitchell D.G., Snyder B., Coakley F. et al. Early invasive
cervical cancer: MRI and CT preditors of lymphatic metastases in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study.
Gynecol. Oncol. 2009; 112(1): 95–103.
19. Narayan K., McKenze A., Fisher R. et al. Estimation of
tumor volume in cervical cancer by magnetic resonance
imaging. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003; 26(5): 163–168.
20. Chiang SH, Quek S.T. Carcinoma of the cervix: role of MR
imaging. Ann. Acad. Med. Singapore. 2003; 32(4):
550–556.
21. Allen D., Narayan K. Managing advanced-stage cervical
cancer. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2005;
19(4): 591–609.
22. Kaur H., Silverman P.M., Iyer R.B. et al. Diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of cervical carcinoma. Am. J.
Roentgol. 2003; 180: 1621–1631.
23. Kim S.H., Choi B.I., Han J.K. et al. Preoperative staging of
uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MRI in
99 patients. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 1993; 17:
633–640.
24. Williams A.D., Cousins C., Soutter W.P. et al. Detection of
pelvic lymph node metastases in gynecologic malignancy:
a comparison of CT, MR imaging, and positron emission
tomography. Am. J. Roentgol. 2001; 177: 343–348.
25. Yang W.T., Lam W.W., Yu M.Y. et al. Comparison of dynamic helical CT and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of
pelvic lymph nodes in cervical carcinoma. Am. J.
Roentgol. 2000; 175: 759–766.
26. Bipat S., Glas A.S., van der Velden J. et al. Computed
tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging
of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review.
Gynecol. Oncol. 2003; 91: 59–66.
27. Rockall A.G., Sohaib S.A., Harisinghani M.G. et al.
Diagnostic performance of nanoparticleenhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lymph node
metastases in patients with endometrial and cervical cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005; 23: 2813–2821.
28. Montana J.S., hanlon A.L., Brickner T.J. et al. Carcinoma
of cervix: Patterns of care stuies: Review of 1978, 1983,
and 19881989 surveys. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.
1995; 32: 1481–1486.
29. Hricak H., Lacey C.G. Sandles L.G. et al. Invasive cervical
carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 1988; 166: 623–631.
30. Subak L.L., Hrica H., Powell B. et al. Cervical carcinoma:
computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging
for preoperative staging. Obstet. Gynecol. 1995; 86:
43–50.
31. Yu K.K., Hricak H., Subak L.L. et al. Preoperative staging
cervical carcinoma: Phased array coil fast spin-echo versus body coil spinecho T2weight MR imaging. Am. J.
Roentgol. 1998; 171: 707–711.
32. Kinkel K. Pitfalls in staging uterine neoplasm with imaging:
a review. Abdom. Imaging 2006; 31(2): 164–173.
33. Sheu M.H., Chang C.Y., Wang J.H., Yen M.S. Preoperative
staging of cervical carcinoma with MR imaging: a reappraisal of diagnostic accuracy and pitfalls. Eur. Radiol.
2001; 11: 1828–1833.
34. Hawighirst H., Schjenberg S.O., Knapstein P.G. et al
Staging of invasive cervical carcinoma and of pelvic lymph
nodes by high resolution MRI with a phasedarray coil in
comparison with pathologicalJ. Comput. Assist. Tomogr.
1998; 206: 125–129.
35. Scheidler J., Heuck A.F., Steinborn M. et al Parametrial
invasion in cervical carcinoma: evaluation of detection at
MR imaging with fat suppression. Radiology 1998; 206:
125–129.
36. Nicolet V., Carigan L., Bourdon F., Prosmanne O. MR
Imaging of Cervical Carcinoma: а practical staging
approach. RadioGrafics 2000; 20: 1539–1549.
37. Choi H.J., Roh J.W., Seo. S.S. et al. Comparison of the
accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron
emission tomography/computed tomography in the
presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in
patients with uterine cervical carcinoma. Cancer 2006;
106(4): 914–922.

Clinic and Diagnostic Aspects of Magnetic Resonance Staging of Cervical Cancer

Assessment of tumor stage plays the most important role in pretreatment examination of cervical cancer (CC), it is necessary for choice of the strategy of treatment and prognosis of the outcome. Recently, clinical staging is commonly supplemented with radiological methods (CT and MRI). The methods, especially MRI, allow making more precise assessment of anatomical structures of pelvis, involved in tumor process during the CC spread. In this article we discuss the clinical value of MRI in CC staging, methodological aspects of MRI of pelvis, and the MRI criterions of estimation of tumor spreading in patients with CC.

Keywords:
cervical carcinoma, MRIstaging, methodology.