Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (대한자기공명의과학회)
권호 표지

MRI Protocol of Female Pelvis

여성골반 MRI 프로토콜

  • Shin, Yu-Ri (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, School of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Rha, Sung-Eun (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, School of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 신유리 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 서울성모병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 나성은 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 서울성모병원 영상의학과)
  • Received : 2010.05.25
  • Accepted : 2010.05.30
  • Published : 2010.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Although ultrasonography is the most commonly used first-line imaging modality of the female pelvis because of diagnostic accuracy, low cost and safety, MRI is the best imaging modality of choice for the evaluation of the female pelvis. The indication of female pelvis MRI is diverse and includes the evaluation of M$\ddot{u}$llerian duct anomaly, differential diagnosis and characterization of uterine and ovarian tumors, and staging of malignant uterine and ovarian tumors. Understanding of MR protocols according to the specific gynecologic pathology allows accurate diagnosis and proper patient management.

여성골반 질환 영역에 있어서 초음파가 적은 비용과 안전성 등의 이유로 가장 흔히 이용되는 최우선적 검사라 한다면 MRI는 정확한 진단과 치료 결정을 위한 중요한 정보를 제공하는 최선의 영상검사로 이미 널리 이용되고 있다. 여성 골반 MRI의 적응증은 광범위하지만 선천성 기형, 자궁 및 난소 종양의 양성 및 악성 감별진단, 악성 자궁 및 난소 종양의 병기 결정 등에 주로 사용되고 있다. 따라서 여성골반 질환의 정확한 진단과 치료 방침 결정에 있어 각각의 질환에 따른 최적의 영상을 얻기 위한 MRI 프로토콜에 대한 이해가 중요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Brown MA, Mattrey RF, Stamato S, Sirlin CB. MRI of the female pelvis using vaginal gel. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1221-1227 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1660
  2. Taupitz M, Rogalla P. MR and CT techniques. In Hamm B, Forstner R, eds. MRI and CT of the female pelvis. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2007:25-36
  3. Baudouin CJ, Soutter WP, Gilderdale DJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the uterine cervix using an intravaginal coil. Magn Reson Med 1992;24:196-203 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910240123
  4. Rofsky NM, Lee VS, Laub G, et al. Abdominal MR imaging with a volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination. Radiology 1999;212:876-884 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.212.3.r99se34876
  5. Ascher SM, O'Malley J, Semelka RC, Patt RH, Rajan S, Thomasson D. T2-weighted MRI of the uterus: fast spin echo vs breat-hold fast spin echo. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 9:384-390 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199903)9:3<384::AID-JMRI4>3.0.CO;2-7
  6. Masui T, Katayama M, Kobayashi S, Sakahara H, Ito T, Nozaki A. T2-weighted MRI of the female pelvis: comparison of breath-hold fast-recovery fast spin-echo and nonbreath-hold fast spin-echo sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13:930- 937 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1133
  7. Lichy MP, Wietek BM, Mugler JP 3rd, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the body trunk using a single-slab, 3-dimensional, T2-weighted turbo-spin-echo sequence with high sampling efficiency (SPACE) for high spatial resolution imaging: initial clinical experiences. Invest Radiol 2005;40:754-760 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000185880.92346.9e
  8. Bellin MF. MR contrast agents, the old and the new. Eur J Radiol 2006;60:314-323 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.06.021
  9. Prince MR, Zhang HL, Prowda JC, Grossman ME, Silvers DN. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and its impact on abdominal imaging. Radiographics 2009;29:1565-1574 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.296095517
  10. Perez-Rodriguez J, Lai S, Ehst BD, Fine DM, Bluemke DA. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: incidence, associations, and effect of risk factor assessment--report of 33 cases. Radiology 2009; 250:371-377 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2502080498
  11. Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mu ¨llerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004;233:19-34 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2331020777
  12. Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, et al. Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology 1999;212:711-718 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.212.3.r99au29711
  13. Yamashita Y, Harada M, Sawada T, Takahashi M, Miyazaki K, Okamura H. Normal uterus and FIGO stage I endometrial carcinoma: dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1993;186:495-501
  14. Hricak H, Finck S, Honda G, Goranson H. MR imaging in the evaluation of benign uterine masses: value of gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced T1-weighted images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:1043-1050 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.158.5.1566664
  15. Hricak H, Chen M, Coakley FV, et al. Complex adnexal masses: detection and characterization with MRI-- multivariate analysis. Radiology 2000; 214:39-46 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.214.1.r00ja3939
  16. Wu TT, Coakely FV, Qayyum A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of ovarian cancer arising in endometriomas. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004;28:836-838 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200411000-00018
  17. Kurihara Y, Yakushiji YK, Tani I, Nakajima Y, Van Cauteren M. Coil sensitivity encoding in MR imaging: advantages and disadvantages in clinical practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1087-1091 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.178.5.1781087
  18. Koyama T, Umeoka S, Kataoka M, et al. Utility of diffusionweighted MR imaging in evaluation of esophageal cancers. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Miami Beach, FL, USA, 2005, p.2820
  19. Namimoto T, Awai K, Nakaura T, Yanaga Y, Hirai T, Yamashita Y. Role of diffusion-weighted imaging in the diagnosis of gynecological disease. Eur Radiol 2009;19:745-760 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1185-5
  20. Whittaker CS, Coady A, Culver L, Rustin G, Padwick M, Padhani AR. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of female pelvis tumors: a pictorial review. Radiographics 2009;29:75-778
  21. Rechichi G, Galimberti S, Signoreli M, Perego P, Valsecchi MG, Sironi S. Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 1.5-T. Eur Radiol 2010;20:754-762 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1597-x
  22. Fujii S, Matsuse E, Kanasaki Y, et al. Detection of peritoneal dissemination in gynecological malignancy: evaluation by diffusion- weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2008;18:18-23 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0732-9
  23. Thomassin-Naggara I, Darai E, Cuenod CA, et al. Contribution of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting benignity of complex adnexal masses. Eur Radiol 2009;19:1544-1552 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1299-4
  24. Lim RP, Lee VS, Bennett GL, et al. Imaging of the female pelvis at 3.0T. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2006;17:427-443 https://doi.org/10.1097/rmr.0b013e3180417d6a
  25. Cornfeld D, Weinreb J. Simple changes to 1.5-T MRI abdomen and pelvis protocols to optimize results at 3T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:140-150 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2903
  26. Brown MA, Martin DR, Semelka RC. Future directions in MR imaging o the female pelvis. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006;14:431-437 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2007.01.005