Download PDF
Rofo 2020; 192(10): 937-944
DOI: 10.1055/a-1198-5729
Review

Revised FIGO Staging for Cervical Cancer – A New Role for MRI

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Johanna Merz
1   Department of Radiology, Freiburg University Hospital, Freiburg, Germany
,
Michaela Bossart
2   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Freiburg University Hospital, Freiburg, Germany
,
Fabian Bamberg
1   Department of Radiology, Freiburg University Hospital, Freiburg, Germany
,
Michel Eisenblaetter
1   Department of Radiology, Freiburg University Hospital, Freiburg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Cervical cancer is still the fourth most common malignancy in women worldwide and has a high mortality rate. The prognosis as well as the therapy depends largely on the extent of the tumor at the time of initial diagnosis. This shows the importance of correct staging of cervical cancer. In order to promote a globally uniform approach, staging of cervical cancer in the past was based on widespread examinations such as exam under anesthesia, histology from cervical conization or biopsy, systematic lymphadenectomy, cystoscopy, proctoscopy, i. v.-pyelogram and chest X-ray. However, as the primary tumor stage was often underestimated, the 2018 revised FIGO classification now permits cross-sectional imaging techniques and pathological findings to be incorporated into disease staging or an already existing stage to be adapted based on radiological findings. Thanks to its excellent soft tissue contrast, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the method of choice for local-regional staging of cervical cancer, evaluating the response to treatment, detecting tumor recurrence and for follow-up examinations. It is important that radiologists interpreting pelvic MRI in case of suspected cervical cancer are familiar with the current FIGO staging system. This is the only way to determine the tumor stage as precisely as possible and thus lay the foundation for the success of therapy for patients. The aim of this review is to present the changes of the revised FIGO classification as well as to show the importance of MRI as the method of choice for local-regional tumor staging as a complement to clinical examination.

Key Points: 

  • Cervical cancer is still the world’s fourth most common female cancer and has a high mortality rate.

  • The FIGO classification for staging cervical cancer in the past was based on clinical and widespread examinations.

  • The primary tumor stage has often been underestimated with the FIGO staging system since 2018.

  • Since 2018, cross-sectional imaging techniques have been incorporated into disease staging.

  • MRI is the method of choice for local-regional tumor staging, evaluation of the response to treatment, detection of tumor recurrence and possible complications.

Citation Format

  • Merz J, Bossart M, Bamberg F et al. Revised FIGO Staging for Cervical Cancer – A New Role for MRI. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2020; 192: 937 – 944

Key words

MRI - staging system - carcinoma of the cervix uteri - revised FIGO classification


Publication History

Received: 13 January 2020

Accepted: 13 May 2020

Article published online:
30 July 2020

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M. et al Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019; 145: 129-135 . doi:10.1002/ijgo.12749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe AGO. S3-Leitlinie Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge der Patientin mit Zervixkarzinom. In 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Rodriguez-Carunchio L, Soveral I, Steenbergen RD. et al HPV-negative carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a distinct type of cervical cancer with poor prognosis. BJOG 2015; 122: 119-127 . doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Berman TA, Schiller JT. Human papillomavirus in cervical cancer and oropharyngeal cancer: One cause, two diseases. Cancer 2017; 123: 2219-2229 . doi:10.1002/cncr.30588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Krebsregisterdaten Zf. Krebs in Deutschland für 2015/2016. In 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Schneede P. One decade of HPV vaccination in Germany. Urologe A 2017; 56: 728-733 . doi:10.1007/s00120-017-0394-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Frazer IH. Development and implementation of papillomavirus prophylactic vaccines. J Immunol 2014; 192: 4007-4011 . doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1490012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Institut RK. Mitteilung der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO) am Robert Koch-Institut: Impfung gegen humane Papillomaviren (HPV) für Mädchen von 12 bis 17 Jahren -Empfehlung und Begründung 2007. Epid Bulletin 2007; 12: 97-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Institut RK. Empfehlungen der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO) beim Robert Koch Institut – 2018/2019. Epid Bull 2018; DOI: 10.17886/EpiBull-2018-042.5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I. et al Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394-424 . doi:10.3322/caac.21492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lea JS, Lin KY. Cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2012; 39: 233-253 . doi:10.1016/j.ogc.2012.02.008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Balcacer P, Shergill A, Litkouhi B. MRI of cervical cancer with a surgical perspective: staging, prognostic implications and pitfalls. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44: 2557-2571 . doi:10.1007/s00261-019-01984-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T. et al Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 1102-1110 . doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1998-x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bipat S, Glas AS, Velden J. et al Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecologic Oncology 2003; 91: 59-66 . doi:10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00409-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Patel-Lippmann K, Robbins JB, Barroilhet L. et al MR Imaging of Cervical Cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2017; 25: 635-649 . doi:10.1016/j.mric.2017.03.007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sarabhai T, Schaarschmidt BM, Wetter A. et al Comparison of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and MRI for pre-therapeutic tumor staging of patients with primary cancer of the uterine cervix. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45: 67-76 . doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3809-y
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Choi HJ, Ju W, Myung SK. et al Diagnostic performance of computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: meta-analysis. Cancer Sci 2010; 101: 1471-1479 . doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01532.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hori M, Kim T, Murakami T. et al Uterine Cervical Carcinoma: Preoperative Staging with 3.0-T MR Imaging-Comparison with 1.5-T MR Imaging. Radiology 2009; 251: 96-104 . doi:10.1148/radiol.2511081265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Haldorsen IS, Lura N, Blaakaer J. et al What Is the Role of Imaging at Primary Diagnostic Work-Up in Uterine Cervical Cancer?. Curr Oncol Rep 2019; 21: 77 . doi:10.1007/s11912-019-0824-0
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Johnson W, Taylor MB, Carrington BM. et al The value of hyoscine butylbromide in pelvic MRI. Clin Radiol 2007; 62: 1087-1093 . doi:10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Van Vierzen PB, Massuger LF, Ruys SH. et al Fast dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging of cervical carcinoma. Clinical Radiology 1998; 53: 183-192 . doi:10.1016/s0009-9260(98)80098-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Thomeer MG, Gerestein C, Spronk S. et al Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2005-2018 . doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2783-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kinkel K, Ariche M, Tardivon AA. et al Differentiation between recurrent tumor and benign conditions after treatment of gynecologic pelvic carcinoma: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging. Radiology 1997; 204: 55-63 . doi:10.1148/radiology.204.1.9205223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Zahra MA, Tan LT, Priest AN. et al Semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging measurements predict radiation response in cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74: 766-773 . doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.023
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F. et al Early invasive cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 Intergroup Study. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 5687-5694 . doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4799
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wipperman J, Neil T, Williams T. Cervical Cancer: Evaluation and Management. Am Fam Physician 2018; 97: 449-454
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kuang F, Yan Z, Wang J. et al The value of diffusion-weighted MRI to evaluate the response to radiochemotherapy for cervical cancer. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2014; 32: 342-349 . doi:10.1016/j.mri.2013.12.007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lucia F, Visvikis D, Desseroit MC. et al Prediction of outcome using pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET/CT and MRI radiomics in locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45: 768-786 . doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3898-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Waggoner SE. Cervical cancer. The Lancet 2003; 361: 2217-2225 . doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13778-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gien LT, Covens A. Lymph node assessment in cervical cancer: prognostic and therapeutic implications. J Surg Oncol 2009; 99: 242-247 . doi:10.1002/jso.21199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Flueckiger F, Ebner F, Poschauko H. et al Cervical Cancer: Serial MR Imaging before and after Primary Radiation Therapy – A 2-year Follow-up Study. Radiology 1992; 184: 89-93 . doi:10.1148/radiology.184.1.1609108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Park JJ, Kim CK, Park SY. et al Assessment of early response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer: value of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 32: 993-1000 . doi:10.1016/j.mri.2014.05.009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kim HS, Kim CK, Park BK. et al Evaluation of therapeutic response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37: 187-193 . doi:10.1002/jmri.23804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Elit L, Fyles AW, Devries MC. et al Follow-up for women after treatment for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 114: 528-535 . doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.06.001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Jung EJ, Byun JM, Kim YN. et al Cervical Adenocarcinoma Has a Poorer Prognosis and a Higher Propensity for Distant Recurrence Than Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27: 1228-1236 . doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000001009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hricak H, Swift PS, Campos Z. et al Irradiation of the cervix uteri: value of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1993; 189: 381-388 . doi:10.1148/radiology.189.2.8210364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bae JM, Kim CK, Park JJ. et al Can diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging predict tumor recurrence of uterine cervical cancer after concurrent chemoradiotherapy?. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41: 1604-1610 . doi:10.1007/s00261-016-0730-y
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lee SI, Catalano OA, Dehdashti F. Evaluation of gynecologic cancer with MR imaging, 18F-FDG PET/CT, and PET/MR imaging. J Nucl Med 2015; 56: 436-443 . doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.145011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Coakley F. et al. Early Invasive Cervical Cancer: CT and MR Imaging in Preoperative Evaluation – ACRIN/GOG Comparative Study of Diagnostic Performance and Interobserver Variability. Radiology 2007; 245: 491-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Testa AC, Di Legge A, De Blasis I. et al Imaging techniques for the evaluation of cervical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28: 741-768 . doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.04.009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M. et al Integrated PET/MRI for whole-body staging of patients with primary cervical cancer: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42: 1814-1824 . doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3131-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar