Imaging Recommendations for Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Cervical Cancer
CC BY 4.0 · Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2023; 44(01): 119-129
DOI: DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1759717
Abstract
Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women globally and the second most common cancer in Indian women, more common in lower socioeconomic strata. Improvement in survival and decrease in morbidity reflect the earlier detection with screening and imaging, as well as multifactorial multimodality therapy integrating surgery, and concurrent chemoradiation therapy providing superior therapeutic benefits. Imaging plays a vital role in assessing the extent of disease and staging of cervical cancer. The appropriateness criteria of a modality are different from its availability based on infrastructure, medical facilities, and resource status. Although in an ideal situation, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) would be of greatest value in locoregional assessment of extent of disease and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography for distant staging; often, an ultrasonography, chest radiograph, and bone scans are utilized, with contrast-enhanced computed tomography representing a fair superior diagnostic accuracy, and can be reported as per the RECIST 1.1 criteria. MRI is also of good utility in the assessment of residual disease, predicting response and detecting small volume recurrence. MRI offers the highest diagnostic accuracy in determining parametrial invasion and hence surgical planning; so also, MRI-guided radiation planning helps in more accurate graded radiation dose planning in radiation therapy. Stage and therapy-based surveillance imaging should be encouraged and recommended.
Publication History
Article published online:
06 March 2023
© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
Abstract
Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women globally and the second most common cancer in Indian women, more common in lower socioeconomic strata. Improvement in survival and decrease in morbidity reflect the earlier detection with screening and imaging, as well as multifactorial multimodality therapy integrating surgery, and concurrent chemoradiation therapy providing superior therapeutic benefits. Imaging plays a vital role in assessing the extent of disease and staging of cervical cancer. The appropriateness criteria of a modality are different from its availability based on infrastructure, medical facilities, and resource status. Although in an ideal situation, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) would be of greatest value in locoregional assessment of extent of disease and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography for distant staging; often, an ultrasonography, chest radiograph, and bone scans are utilized, with contrast-enhanced computed tomography representing a fair superior diagnostic accuracy, and can be reported as per the RECIST 1.1 criteria. MRI is also of good utility in the assessment of residual disease, predicting response and detecting small volume recurrence. MRI offers the highest diagnostic accuracy in determining parametrial invasion and hence surgical planning; so also, MRI-guided radiation planning helps in more accurate graded radiation dose planning in radiation therapy. Stage and therapy-based surveillance imaging should be encouraged and recommended.
Keywords
cancer - cervical - guidelines - imaging - MRIIntroduction
Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women globally and the second most common cancer in women in India. Annual global and Indian estimates of new cases for the year 2020 were 6,04,127 and 1,23, 907, respectively.[1] It is more common in women belonging to lower socioeconomic strata and more than 85%-of all cases occur in developing countries. Even in these countries, the incidence is declining that could be attributed to better lifestyle, genital hygiene, and safe sexual practices. Down-staging among the diagnosed cases and earlier stages at presentation alongwith improved treatment protocol with chemoradiation therapy have led to improved survival. Pretreatment imaging plays a critical role in staging the disease as well as planning the appropriate treatment for the patient.
Etiology and Risk Factors
Infection with high-risk human papilloma virus (HPV) is a necessary but not sufficient cause for cervical cancer, with genotypes 16 and 18 being responsible for nearly 70%-of cases.[2] HPV is a common sexually transmitted infection. In more than 90%-of women, infection is transient and self-limiting; while in less than 10%-virus may persist. Incorporation of viral genome into the host nucleus is the key step in HPV carcinogenesis. Factors that increase acquisition and persistence of HPV are also risk factors for cervical cancer and these include infections with other sexually transmitted diseases (human immunodeficiency virus and Chlamydia trachomatis), tobacco use, early onset of sexual activity, multiple sexual partners, multiparity, poor nutrition, personal hygiene, and long-term use of hormonal contraceptives. A minor fraction of cases of cervical cancer is HPV independent.
Classification
[Table 1] shows the World Health Organization fifth edition 2020; classification of cervical tumors. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common histologic type followed by adenocarcinoma.
Squamous epithelial tumors |
Squamous metaplasia Atrophy Condyloma acuminatum Low-grade squamous epithelial lesion Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 High-grade Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 Squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-independent |
Glandular tumors and precursors |
Endocervical polyp Mullerian papilloma Nabothian cyst Tunnel clusters Microglandular hyperplasia Lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia Diffuse laminar endocervical hyperplasia Mesonephric remnants and hyperplasia Arias-Stella reaction Endocervicosis Tuboendometrioid metaplasia Ectopic prostatic tissue Adenocarcinomas of in-situ NOS Adenocarcinoma in situ, HPV-associated Adenocarcinoma in situ HPV-independent Adenocarcinoma, NOS Adenocarcinoma, HPV-associated Adenocarcinoma, HPV-independent, gastric type Adenocarcinoma, HPV-independent, clear cell type Adenocarcinoma, HPV-independent, mesonephric type Adenocarcinoma, HPV-independent, NOS Endometrioid adenocarcinoma |
Other epithelial tumors |
Carcinosarcoma, adenosquamous and mucoepidermoid carcinomas, adenoid basal, and unclassified carcinomas. |
Mixed epithelial and mesenchymal tumors |
Adenomyoma and adenosarcoma |
Germ cell tumors |
Germ cell tumors |
Stage I |
Nonfertility sparing |
a.Imaging should be based on symptomatology and clinical concern for recurrent/metastatic disease |
b.For patients with FIGO stage IB3 or patients who required postoperative adjuvant radiation or chemoradiation due to high-risk factors |
c. Neck/chest/abdomen/pelvis/groin PET/CT may be performed at 3–6 months after completion of treatment |
Fertility sparing |
a.Consider pelvic MRI with contrast 6 months after surgery and then yearly for 2–3 years |
b.Other imaging should be based on symptomatology and clinical concern for recurrent/metastatic disease |
Stage II to IV |
Neck/chest/abdomen/pelvis/groin PET/CT (preferred) or chest/abdomen/pelvic CT with contrast within 3–6 months of completion of therapy |
Consider pelvic MRI with contrast at 3–6 months post completion of therapy |
Other imaging should be based on symptomatology and clinical concern for recurrent/metastatic disease |
Stage IVB or recurrence |
Imaging as appropriate (CT, MRI, or PET/CT) to assess response or determine further therapy |
MRI and CT are performed with contrast throughout the guidelines unless contraindicated. Contrast is not required for screening chest CT |
These factors may include abnormal physical exam findings or pelvic, abdominal, or pulmonary symptoms |
Risk factors may include positive nodes, positive parametria, positive margins, or local cervical factors |
These factors may include abnormal physical exam findings such as palpable mass or adenopathy, or new pelvic, abdominal, or pulmonary symptoms |
References
- Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71 (03) 209-249 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33538338/ cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- Walboomers JMM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM. et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999; 189 (01) 12-19 [Internet]
- Olawaiye AB, Baker TP, Washington MK, Mutch DG. The new (Version 9) American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor, node, metastasis staging for cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71 (04) 287-298 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21663 cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- 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 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30656645/ cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- Haldorsen IS, Lura N, Blaakær J, Fischerova D, Werner HMJ. What is the role of imaging at primary diagnostic work-up in uterine cervical cancer?. Curr Oncol Rep 2019; 21 (09) 77 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31359169/ cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- Recommendations | ESGO Gynae-Oncology Guidelines [Internet]. [cited 2022 Apr 4]. Accessed November 21, 2022 at: https://guidelines.esgo.org/cervical-cancer/guidelines/recommendations/
- Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F. et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Cervical Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018; 28 (04) 641-655 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29688967/ cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- Chopra SJ, Mathew A, Maheshwari A. et al. National Cancer Grid of India Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Cervical Cancer. J Glob Oncol 2018; 4: 1-15 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30085891/ cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- ESTRO - Session Item [Internet]. [cited 2022 Apr 5]. Accessed November 21, 2022 at: https://www.estro.org/Congresses/ESTRO-2021/500/profferedpapers17-gynaecological/3421/newprognosticfactorsinlocallyadvancedcervicalcance
- Fang M, Kan Y, Dong D. et al. Multi-habitat based radiomics for the prediction of treatment response to concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Front Oncol 2020; 10: 563
- Hillestad T, Hompland T, Fjeldbo CS. et al. MRI distinguishes tumor hypoxia levels of different prognostic and biological significance in cervical cancer. Cancer Res 2020; 80 (18) 3993-4003 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32606004/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Mahajan A, Sable NP, Popat PB. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of gynecological malignancies: role in personalized management. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2017; 38 (03) 231-268
- Schwartz LH, Litière S, de Vries E. et al. RECIST 1.1-update and clarification: from the RECIST committee. Eur J Cancer 2016; 62: 132-137
- Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A. et al; RECIST working group. iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18 (03) e143-e152
- Tewari KS, Monk BJ. Evidence-based treatment paradigms for management of invasive cervical carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (27) 2472-2489 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31403858/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol 1999; 73 (02) 177-183 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10329031/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Peters III WA, Liu PY, Barrett II RJ. et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18 (08) 1606-1613 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10764420/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Gupta S, Maheshwari A, Parab P. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery versus concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with Stage IB2, IIA, or IIB squamous cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (16) 1548-1555 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29432076/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Vale C, Tierney JF, Stewart LA. et al; Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-Analysis Collaboration. Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26 (35) 5802-5812 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19001332/ cited 2022Apr12 [Internet]
- Haie-Meder C, Pötter R, Van Limbergen E. et al; Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (I): concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol 2005; 74 (03) 235-245 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15763303/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Pötter R, Tanderup K, Schmid MP. et al; EMBRACE Collaborative Group. MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer (EMBRACE-I): a multicentre prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22 (04) 538-547 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33794207/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Hande V, Chopra S, Kalra B. et al. Point-A vs. volume-based brachytherapy for the treatment of cervix cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2022; 170 (00) 70-78 http://www.thegreenjournal.com/article/S0167814022001232/fulltext cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Moore DH, Blessing JA, McQuellon RP. et al. Phase III study of cisplatin with or without paclitaxel in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (15) 3113-3119 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15284262/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Tewari KS, Sill MW, Long III HJ. et al. Improved survival with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 370 (08) 734-743 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24552320/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Kitagawa R,
Katsumata N, Shibata T. et al. Paclitaxel plus
carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus cisplatin in metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer: the open-label randomized
phase III Trial JCOG0505. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33 (19) 2129-2135 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25732161/ cited
2022Apr5 [Internet]
Address for correspondence
Palak Bhavesh Popat, DNBDepartment of Radiology, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Tata Memorial Hospital117, Gr Floor, Main Building, E. Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400012, MaharashtraIndiaEmail: dr.palakp@gmail.comPublication History
Article published online:
06 March 2023© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
References
- Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71 (03) 209-249 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33538338/ cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- Walboomers JMM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM. et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999; 189 (01) 12-19 [Internet]
- Olawaiye AB, Baker TP, Washington MK, Mutch DG. The new (Version 9) American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor, node, metastasis staging for cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71 (04) 287-298 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21663 cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- 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 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30656645/ cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- Haldorsen IS, Lura N, Blaakær J, Fischerova D, Werner HMJ. What is the role of imaging at primary diagnostic work-up in uterine cervical cancer?. Curr Oncol Rep 2019; 21 (09) 77 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31359169/ cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- Recommendations | ESGO Gynae-Oncology Guidelines [Internet]. [cited 2022 Apr 4]. Accessed November 21, 2022 at: https://guidelines.esgo.org/cervical-cancer/guidelines/recommendations/
- Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F. et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Cervical Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018; 28 (04) 641-655 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29688967/ cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- Chopra SJ, Mathew A, Maheshwari A. et al. National Cancer Grid of India Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Cervical Cancer. J Glob Oncol 2018; 4: 1-15 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30085891/ cited 2022Apr4 [Internet]
- ESTRO - Session Item [Internet]. [cited 2022 Apr 5]. Accessed November 21, 2022 at: https://www.estro.org/Congresses/ESTRO-2021/500/profferedpapers17-gynaecological/3421/newprognosticfactorsinlocallyadvancedcervicalcance
- Fang M, Kan Y, Dong D. et al. Multi-habitat based radiomics for the prediction of treatment response to concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Front Oncol 2020; 10: 563
- Hillestad T, Hompland T, Fjeldbo CS. et al. MRI distinguishes tumor hypoxia levels of different prognostic and biological significance in cervical cancer. Cancer Res 2020; 80 (18) 3993-4003 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32606004/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Mahajan A, Sable NP, Popat PB. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of gynecological malignancies: role in personalized management. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2017; 38 (03) 231-268
- Schwartz LH, Litière S, de Vries E. et al. RECIST 1.1-update and clarification: from the RECIST committee. Eur J Cancer 2016; 62: 132-137
- Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A. et al; RECIST working group. iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18 (03) e143-e152
- Tewari KS, Monk BJ. Evidence-based treatment paradigms for management of invasive cervical carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (27) 2472-2489 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31403858/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol 1999; 73 (02) 177-183 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10329031/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Peters III WA, Liu PY, Barrett II RJ. et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18 (08) 1606-1613 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10764420/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Gupta S, Maheshwari A, Parab P. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery versus concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with Stage IB2, IIA, or IIB squamous cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (16) 1548-1555 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29432076/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Vale C, Tierney JF, Stewart LA. et al; Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-Analysis Collaboration. Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26 (35) 5802-5812 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19001332/ cited 2022Apr12 [Internet]
- Haie-Meder C, Pötter R, Van Limbergen E. et al; Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (I): concepts and terms in 3D image based 3D treatment planning in cervix cancer brachytherapy with emphasis on MRI assessment of GTV and CTV. Radiother Oncol 2005; 74 (03) 235-245 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15763303/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Pötter R, Tanderup K, Schmid MP. et al; EMBRACE Collaborative Group. MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer (EMBRACE-I): a multicentre prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22 (04) 538-547 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33794207/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Hande V, Chopra S, Kalra B. et al. Point-A vs. volume-based brachytherapy for the treatment of cervix cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2022; 170 (00) 70-78 http://www.thegreenjournal.com/article/S0167814022001232/fulltext cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Moore DH, Blessing JA, McQuellon RP. et al. Phase III study of cisplatin with or without paclitaxel in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (15) 3113-3119 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15284262/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Tewari KS, Sill MW, Long III HJ. et al. Improved survival with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 370 (08) 734-743 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24552320/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]
- Kitagawa R, Katsumata N, Shibata T. et al. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus cisplatin in metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer: the open-label randomized phase III Trial JCOG0505. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33 (19) 2129-2135 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25732161/ cited 2022Apr5 [Internet]