Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Node-by-node correlation between MR and PET/CT in patients with uterine cervical cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging versus size-based criteria on T2WI

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to perform a node-by-node comparison of an ADC-based diagnosis and various size-based criteria on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) with regard to their correlation with PET/CT findings in patients with uterine cervical cancer. In 163 patients with 339 pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) with short-axis diameter >5 mm, the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), mean ADC, short- and long-axis diameters, and ratio of long- to short-axis diameters (L/S ratio) were compared in PET/CT-positive and -negative LNs. On PET/CT, 118 (35%) LNs in 58 patients were positive. The mean value of minimum and mean ADCs, short- and long-axis diameters, and L/S ratio were different in PET/CT-positive (0.6436 × 10−3 mm2/s, 0.756 × 10−3 mm2/s, 10.3 mm, 13.2 mm, 1.32, respectively) and PET/CT-negative LNs (0.8893 × 10−3 mm2/s, 1.019 × 10−3 mm2/s, 7.4 mm, 11.0 mm, 1.49, respectively) (P < 0.05). The Az value of the minimum ADC (0.864) was greater than those of mean ADC (0.836), short-axis diameter (0.764), long-axis diameter (0.640) and L/S ratio (0.652) (P < 0.05). The sensitivity and accuracy of the minimum ADC (86%, 82%) were greater than those of the short-axis diameter (55%, 74%), long-axis diameter (73%, 58%) and L/S ratio (52%, 66%) (P < 0.05). ADC showed superior correlation with PET/CT compared with conventional size-based criteria on T2WI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kamura T, Tsukamoto N, Tsuruchi N et al (1992) Multivariate analysis of the histopathologic prognostic factors of cervical cancer in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. Cancer 69:181–186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Inoue T, Morita K (1990) The prognostic significance of number of positive nodes in cervical carcinoma stages IB, IIA, and IIB. Cancer 65:1923–1927

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Girardi F, Haas J (1993) The importance of the histologic processing of pelvic lymph nodes in the treatment of cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 3:12–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Michel G, Morice P, Castaigne D et al (1998) Lymphatic spread in stage Ib and II cervical carcinoma: anatomy and surgical implications. Obstet Gynecol 91:360–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellomi M, Bonomo G, Landoni F et al (2005) Accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of lymph node involvement in cervix carcinoma. Eur Radiol 15:2469–2474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bipat S, Glas AS, van der Velden J et al (2003) Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 91:6059–6066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi HJ, Kim SH, Seo SS et al (2006) MRI for pretreatment lymph node staging in uterine cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W538–W543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS et al (2006) 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: a prospective study. Cancer 106:914–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim SH, Choi BI, Han JK et al (1993) Preoperative staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MRI in 99 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17:633–640

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D et al (2001) Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET. Radiology 218:776–782

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Roy C, Le Bras Y, Mangold L et al (1997) Small pelvic lymph node metastases: evaluation with MR imaging. Clin Radiol 52:437–440

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams AD, Cousins C, Soutter WP et al (2001) Detection of pelvic lymph node metastases in gynecologic malignancy: a comparison of CT, MR imaging, and positron emission tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:343–348

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yang WT, Lam WW, Yu MY et al (2000) Comparison of dynamic helical CT and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:759–766

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim JK, Kim KA, Park BW et al (2008) Feasibility of diffusion-weighted imaging in the differentiation of metastatic from nonmetastatic lymph nodes: early experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:714–719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lin G, Ho KC, Wang JJ et al (2008) Detection of lymph node metastasis in cervical and uterine cancers by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:128–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nakai G, Matsuki M, Inada Y et al (2008) Detection and evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with gynecologic malignancies using body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32:764–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M et al (2006) Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical early-stage cervical cancer: detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 238:272–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sugawara Y, Eisbruch A, Kosuda S et al (1999) Evaluation of FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 40:1125–1131

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schoder H, Yeung HW, Gonen M et al (2004) Head and neck cancer: clinical usefulness and accuracy of PET/CT image fusion. Radiology 231:65–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hein PA, Kremser C, Judmaier W et al (2003) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring diffusion changes in rectal carcinoma during combined, preoperative chemoradiation: preliminary results of a prospective study. Eur J Radiol 45:214–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim JK, Kim KA, Park BW et al (2008) Feasibility of diffusion weighted imaging in the differentiation of metastatic from non-metastatic lymph nodes: early experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:714–719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Naganawa S, Sato C, Kumada H et al (2005) Apparent diffusion coefficient in cervical cancer of the uterus: comparison with the normal uterine cervix. Eur Radiol 15:71–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J (2004) Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves. Crit Care 8:508–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sakuragi N, Satoh C, Takeda N et al (1999) Incidence and distribution pattern of pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with Stages IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer 85:1547–1554

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim SH, Kim SC, Choi BI et al (1994) Uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastasis with MR imaging. Radiology 190:807–811

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Choi SH, Kim SH, Choi HJ et al (2004) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: results of prospective study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:620–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG et al (1988) Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 166:623–631

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim JH, Beets GL, Kim MJ et al (2004) High-resolution MR imaging for nodal staging in rectal cancer: are there any criteria in addition to the size? Eur J Radiol 52:78–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen AC, Sung WH, Wang PH et al (2002) Correlation of three-dimensional tumor volumetry with cervical cancer prognostic parameters. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 23:401–404

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kodaira T, Fuwa N, Toita T et al (2003) Comparison of prognostic value of MRI and FIGO stage among patients with cervical carcinoma treated with radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:769–777

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sumi M, Sakihama N, Sumi T et al (2003) Discrimination of metastatic cervical lymph nodes with diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with head and neck cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24:1627–1634

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al (2008) Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1652–1658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. DeLano MC, Cooper TG, Siebert JE et al (2000) High-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging of adult brain: image contrast and apparent diffusion coefficient map features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21:1830–1836

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by a grant of the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health Welfare, Republic of Korea (A070001) and by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) grant funded by the Korean government (MOST) (no. R01-2006-000-10998-0)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, 388-1 Poongnap dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 138-736, Korea

    Eugene K. Choi, Jeong Kon Kim, Hyuck Jae Choi, Seong Ho Park, Bum-Woo Park, Namkug Kim & Kyoung-Sik Cho

  2. Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1721, USA

    Eugene K. Choi

  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, 388-1 Poongnap dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 138-736, Korea

    Jae Seung Kim & Ki Chun Im

  4. Bio-MR center, Korea Basic Science Institute, 804-1 Yangcheong-ri, Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363-883, Korea

    Gyunggoo Cho

Authors
  1. Eugene K. Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeong Kon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hyuck Jae Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seong Ho Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bum-Woo Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Namkug Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jae Seung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ki Chun Im
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Gyunggoo Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kyoung-Sik Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeong Kon Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choi, E.K., Kim, J.K., Choi, H.J. et al. Node-by-node correlation between MR and PET/CT in patients with uterine cervical cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging versus size-based criteria on T2WI. Eur Radiol 19, 2024–2032 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1350-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1350-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation