Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2021; 31(02): 454-467
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1734377
Pictorial Essay

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Uterine Cervix: A Pictorial Essay

Foram B. Gala
1   Department of Radiology, Lifescan Imaging Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2   Department of Radiology, Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Kunal B. Gala
3   Department of Radiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Bharat M. Gala
1   Department of Radiology, Lifescan Imaging Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Uterine cervix is the lower constricted part of uterus which is best evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to its higher soft tissue and contrast resolution. The cervical cancer is a common gynecological cancer causing much morbidity and mortality especially in developing countries. Cervical carcinomas mainly occurs in reproductive age group with prognosis mainly depending on the extent of disease at the time of diagnosis, hence it is important to identify these cancerous lesions early and stage them accurately for optimal treatment. In this article, we will review the following: (1) the normal MRI anatomy of uterine cervix; (2) MRI protocol and techniques in evaluation of cervical lesions; (3) imaging of spectrum of various congenital abnormalities and pathologies affecting uterine cervix which ranges from congenital abnormalities to various benign lesions of cervix like nabothian cysts, tunnel cysts, cervicitis, cervical fibroid, and, lastly, endometriosis which usually coexists with adenomyosis; the malignant lesions include carcinoma cervix, adenoma malignum or direct extension from carcinoma endometrium or from carcinoma of vagina; (4) Accurately stage carcinoma of cervix using FIGO classification (2018); and (5) posttreatment evaluation of cervical cancers. MRI is the most reliable imaging modality in evaluation of various cervical lesions, identification of cervical tumors, staging of the cervical malignancy, and stratifying patients for surgery and radiation therapy. It also plays an important role in detection of local disease recurrence.

Keywords

cervical lesions - cervical cancer - MRI of cervix


Publication History

Article published online:
04 August 2021

© 2021. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 II: The anatomy of the uterine cervix and isthmus. Acta Radiol 1952; os-37 (Suppl. 91) 9-12
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Klüner C, Hamm B. Normal imaging findings of the uterus. In: Hamm B, Forstner R, Beinder E, eds. MRI and CT of the Female Pelvis.. Berlin, Germany: Springer 2007; 37-47
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Ferenczy A. Anatomy and histology of the cervix. In: Blaustein A, ed. Pathology of the Female Genital Tract.. New York, NY: Springer 1977; 102-3
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Agrawal G. Part I: MR of the female pelvis. Available at: https://www.appliedradiology.com/articles/part-i-mr-of-the-female-pelvis. Accessed July 22, 2021
  • 5 Johnson W, Taylor MB, Carrington BM, Bonington SC, Swindell R. The value of hyoscine butylbromide in pelvic MRI. Clin Radiol 2007; 62 (11) 1087-1093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Camis CC, Brenna SMF, Lombardelli KVP, Maria Célia R. Djahjah: magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of cervical cancer. Radiol Bras 2007; 40: 207-215
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Okamoto Y, Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Yoshikawa H, Itai Y. MR imaging of the uterine cervix: imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2003; 23 (02) 425-445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Keriakos NN, Darwish E. Diffusion-weighted imaging in suspicious uterine tumors; how efficient is it?. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2018; 49: 838-845
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bin Park S, Lee JH, Lee YH, Song MJ, Choi HJ. Multilocular cystic lesions in the uterine cervix: broad spectrum of imaging features and pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195 (02) 517-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kuang F, Yan Z, Li H, Feng H. Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted MRI for differentiation of cervical cancer and benign cervical lesions at 3.0T: Comparison with routine MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 42 (04) 1094-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Jones MA, Young RH. Endocervical type A (noncystic) tunnel clusters with cytologic atypia. A report of 14 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1996; 20 (11) 1312-1318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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 (05) 1102-1110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A. Imaging of müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics 2012; 32 (06) E233-E250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mueller GC, Hussain HK, Smith YR. et al. Müllerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189 (06) 1294-1302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004; 233 (01) 19-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Robbins JB, Parry JP, Guite KM. et al. MRI of pregnancy-related issues: müllerian duct anomalies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198 (02) 302-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Elamparidhi P, Kumar RR, Sivaranjinie S, Sibhithran R. Mullerian agenesis associated with Turner’s syndrome. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11 (02) TD01-TD02
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Carrington BM, Hricak H, Nuruddin RN. Secaf E, Laros RK Jr., Hill EC. Müllerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 1990; 176 (03) 715-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Segal GH, Hart WR. Cystic endocervical tunnel clusters. A clinicopathologic study of 29 cases of so-called adenomatous hyperplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 1990; 14 (10) 895-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Young RH, Clement PB. Pseudoneoplastic glandular lesions of the uterine cervix. Semin Diagn Pathol 1991; 8 (04) 234-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sugiyama K, Takehara Y. MR findings of pseudoneoplastic lesions in the uterine cervix mimicking adenoma malignum. Br J Radiol 2007; 80 (959) 878-883
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Takatsu A, Shiozawa T, Miyamoto T. et al. Preoperative differential diagnosis of minimal deviation adenocarcinoma and lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia of the uterine cervix: a multicenter study of clinicopathology and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011; 21 (07) 1287-1296
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Tiltman AJ. Leiomyomas of the uterine cervix: a study of frequency. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1998; 17 (03) 231-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ueda H, Togashi K, Konishi I. et al. Unusual appearances of uterine leiomyomas: MR imaging findings and their histopathologic backgrounds. Radiographics 1999; 19 (01) S131-S145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Stamatellos I, Stamatopoulos P, Bontis J. The role of hysteroscopy in the current management of the cervical polyps. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2007; 276 (04) 299-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Golan A, Ber A, Wolman I, David MP. Cervical polyp: evaluation of current treatment. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1994; 37 (01) 56-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Coutinho Jr. A, Bittencourt LK, Pires CE. et al. MR imaging in deep pelvic endometriosis: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 2011; 31 (02) 549-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tamai K, Togashi K, Ito T, Morisawa N, Fujiwara T, Koyama T. MR imaging findings of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathologic features and diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics 2005; 25 (01) 21-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Novellas S, Chassang M, Delotte J. et al. MRI characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: from normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196 (05) 1206-1213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ascher-Walsh CJ, Tu JL, Du Y, Blanco JS. Location of adenomyosis in total hysterectomy specimens. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2003; 10 (03) 360-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Park J, Kim T, Lee H, Lee W, Chung S, Park S. Cervical endometriosis in a post-menopausal woman: a case report. J Korean Soc Menopause 2011; 17: 174-177
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Phadnis SV, Doshi JS, Ogunnaike O, Coady A, Padwick M, Sanusi FA. Cervical endometriosis: a diagnostic and management dilemma. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005; 272 (04) 289-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ata B, Ates U, Usta T, Attar E. Cervical endometriosis, a case presenting with intractable spotting. MedGenMed 2005; 7 (02) 64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wang S, Li XC, Lang JH. Cervical endometriosis: clinical character and management experience in a 27-year span. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (05) 452.e1-452.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Szyfelbein WM, Baker PM, Bell DA. Superficial endometriosis of the cervix: A source of abnormal glandular cells on cervicovaginal smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2004; 30 (02) 88-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bennett GL, Slywotzky CM, Cantera M, Hecht EM. Unusual manifestations and complications of endometriosis–spectrum of imaging findings: pictorial review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194 (Suppl. 06) WS34-WS46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, Hillstrom MM. Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics 2009; 29 (05) 1353-1370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Guven S, Ilıca T, Yılmaz A, Alanbay I. A case of asymptomatic postmenopausal hematometra mimicking endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Obstet Reprod Med 2007; 13: 67-69 ISSN 1300–4751
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68 (06) 394-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Patel S, Liyanage SH, Sahdev A, Rockall AG, Reznek RH. Imaging of endometrial and cervical cancer. Insights Imaging 2010; 1 (05/06) 309-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M. et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019; 145 (01) 129-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Zand KR, Reinhold C, Abe H, Maheshwari S, Mohamed A, Upegui D. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervix. Cancer Imaging 2007; 7: 69-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Rockall AG, Ghosh S, Alexander-Sefre F. et al. Can MRI rule out bladder and rectal invasion in cervical cancer to help select patients for limited EUA?. Gynecol Oncol 2006; 101 (02) 244-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Delgado G, Bundy BN, Fowler WC Jr. et al. A prospective surgical pathological study of stage I squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 35 (03) 314-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Inoue T. Prognostic significance of the depth of invasion relating to nodal metastases, parametrial extension, and cell types. A study of 628 cases with Stage IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma. Cancer 1984; 54 (12) 3035-3042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Trattner M, Graf AH, Lax S. et al. Prognostic factors in surgically treated stage ib-iib cervical carcinomas with special emphasis on the importance of tumor volume. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 82 (01) 11-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 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 (03) 759-766
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Atri M, Zhang Z, Dehdashti F. et al. Utility of PET-CT to evaluate retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis in advanced cervical cancer: Results of ACRIN6671/GOG0233 trial. Gynecol Oncol 2016; 142 (03) 413-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Choi HJ, Ju W, Myung SK, Kim Y. 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 (06) 1471-1479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical cancer 2018. Available at: https://www2.tri-kobe.org/nccn/guideline/archive/gynecological2018/english/cervical.pdf.
  • 51 Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018; 143 (Suppl. 02) 22-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Chai Y, Wang T, Wang J. et al. Radical hysterectomy with adjuvant radiotherapy versus radical radiotherapy for FIGO stage IIB cervical cancer. BMC Cancer 2014; 14: 63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Marin F, Plesca M, Bordea CI, Moga MA, Blidaru A. Types of radical hysterectomies : from Thoma Ionescu and Wertheim to present day. J Med Life 2014; 7 (02) 172-176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Ramirez PT, Pareja R, Rendón GJ, Millan C, Frumovitz M, Schmeler KM. Management of low-risk early-stage cervical cancer: should conization, simple trachelectomy, or simple hysterectomy replace radical surgery as the new standard of care?. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 132 (01) 254-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Bourgioti C, Chatoupis K, Moulopoulos LA. Current imaging strategies for the evaluation of uterine cervical cancer. World J Radiol 2016; 8 (04) 342-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Papadopoulou I, Stewart V, Barwick TD. et al. Post-radiation therapy imaging appearances in cervical carcinoma. Radiographics 2016; 36 (02) 538-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Mahajan M, Kuber R, Chaudhari K, Chaudhari P, Ghadage P, Naik R. MR imaging of carcinoma cervix. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2013; 23 (03) 247-252
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Ki EY, Byun SW, Park JS, Lee SJ, Hur SY. Adenoma malignum of the uterine cervix: report of four cases. World J Surg Oncol 2013; 11: 168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Peppercorn PD, Jeyarajah AR, Woolas R. et al. Role of MR imaging in the selection of patients with early cervical carcinoma for fertility-preserving surgery: initial experience. Radiology 1999; 212 (02) 395-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 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 (06) 1805-1827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Bourgioti C, Chatoupis K, Panourgias E. et al. Endometrial vs. cervical cancer: development and pilot testing of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scoring system for predicting tumor origin of uterine carcinomas of indeterminate histology. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40 (07) 2529-2540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar