대한영상의학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology)

  • 제82권5호
  • /
  • Pages.1083-1102
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1738-2637(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2951-0805(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

자궁경부암: 개정된 2018 FIGO 병기와 자기공명영상을 중심으로

Uterine Cervical Cancer: Emphasis on Revised FIGO Staging 2018 and MRI

  • 장원 (전북대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 송지수 (전북대학교병원 영상의학과)
  • Weon Jang (Department of Radiology, Jeonbuk National University Hospital) ;
  • Ji Soo Song (Department of Radiology, Jeonbuk National University Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2021.06.14
  • 심사 : 2021.09.17
  • 발행 : 2021.09.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

자궁경부암(uterine cervical cancer)은 발생 빈도가 높은 부인암 중 하나로서 병변의 조기발견과 정확한 병기설정 및 치료가 예후에 큰 영향을 미치며 영상 검사는 병기설정 및 치료계획과 추적 관찰에 있어 중요한 역할을 하고 있다. 특히 자기공명영상은 높은 연부 조직의 대조도를 통해 병변의 크기와 침범 정도를 파악하는 데 유용하다. 2018년 국제 산부인과 학회(International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; 이하 FIGO)에서 병기설정이 개정되었으며, 원발종양의 크기를 세분화하고 림프절 전이를 포함하게 되었다. 본 종설에서는 이전 연구 및 최근 개정된 FIGO 병기를 바탕으로 한 자궁경부암의 병기설정과 여러 가지 치료 후 영상에 대해 자기공명영상 소견을 중심으로 기술하고자 한다.

Uterine cervical cancer is a common gynecological cancer prevalent in Korea. Early detection, precise diagnosis, and appropriate treatment can affect its prognosis. Imaging approaches play an important role in staging, treatment planning, and follow-up. MRI specifically provides the advantage of assessing tumor size and disease severity with high soft tissue contrast. The revised version of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system has been introduced in 2018, which incorporates subdivided primary tumor size and lymph node metastasis. In this review, the staging of uterine cervical cancer based on previous studies, the recently revised FIGO staging, and various post-treatment images are primarily described using MRI.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Korea Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center. Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2018. Sejong: Ministry of Health and Welfare 2020
  2. Mirkovic J, Howitt BE, Roncarati P, Demoulin S, Suarez-Carmona M, Hubert P, et al. Carcinogenic HPV infection in the cervical squamo-columnar junction. J Pathol 2015;236:265-271 https://doi.org/10.1002/path.4533
  3. Olpin J, Chuang L, Berek J, Gaffney D. Imaging and cancer of the cervix in low- and middle-income countries. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2018;25:115-121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2018.07.001
  4. Manganaro L, Lakhman Y, Bharwani N, Gui B, Gigli S, Vinci V, et al. Staging, recurrence and follow-up of uterine cervical cancer using MRI: Updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology after revised FIGO staging 2018. Eur Radiol 2021 Apr [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07632-9
  5. Herfs M, Yamamoto Y, Laury A, Wang X, Nucci MR, McLaughlin-Drubin ME, et al. A discrete population of squamocolumnar junction cells implicated in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012;109:10516-10521 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202684109
  6. Pano B, Sebastia C, Ripoll E, Paredes P, Salvador R, Bunesch L, et al. Pathways of lymphatic spread in gynecologic malignancies. Radiographics 2015;35:916-945 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140086
  7. Gouy S, Morice P, Narducci F, Uzan C, Gilmore J, Kolesnikov-Gauthier H, et al. Nodal-staging surgery for locally advanced cervical cancer in the era of PET. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e212-e220 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70011-6
  8. Testa AC, Di Legge A, De Blasis I, Moruzzi MC, Bonatti M, Collarino A, et al. Imaging techniques for the evaluation of cervical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014;28:741-768 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.04.009
  9. Woo S, Atun R, Ward ZJ, Scott AM, Hricak H, Vargas HA. Diagnostic performance of conventional and advanced imaging modalities for assessing newly diagnosed cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2020;30:5560-5577 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06909-3
  10. Scheidler J, Heuck AF. Imaging of cancer of the cervix. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40:577-590, vii https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-8389(01)00007-0
  11. Bourgioti C, Chatoupis K, Moulopoulos LA. Current imaging strategies for the evaluation of uterine cervical cancer. World J Radiol 2016;8:342-354 https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i4.342
  12. Liu B, Gao S, Li S. A comprehensive comparison of CT, MRI, positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/CT, and diffusion weighted imaging-MRI for detecting the lymph nodes metastases in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis based on 67 studies. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2017;82:209-222 https://doi.org/10.1159/000456006
  13. Zhang W, Chen C, Liu P, Li W, Hao M, Zhao W, et al. Impact of pelvic MRI in routine clinical practice on staging of IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer. Cancer Manag Res 2019;11:3603-3609 https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S197496
  14. 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;32:1805-1827 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.326125519
  15. Park JJ, Kim CK, Park SY, Park BK. Parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: fused T2-weighted imaging and high-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression at 3 T. Radiology 2015;274:734-741 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140920
  16. Akita A, Shinmoto H, Hayashi S, Akita H, Fujii T, Mikami S, et al. Comparison of T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging at 1.5 T for assessing the local extent of cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2011;21:1850-1857 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2122-6
  17. Rockall AG, Sohaib SA, Harisinghani MG, Babar SA, Singh N, Jeyarajah AR, et al. Diagnostic performance of nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in patients with endometrial and cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2813-2821 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.07.166
  18. Thomeer MG, Gerestein C, Spronk S, van Doorn HC, van der Ham E, Hunink MG. Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2013;23:2005-2018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2783-4
  19. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Magnetic resonance imaging for detection of parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature between 2012 and 2016. Eur Radiol 2018;28:530-541 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4958-x
  20. Rockall AG, Ghosh S, Alexander-Sefre F, Babar S, Younis MT, Naz S, et al. Can MRI rule out bladder and rectal invasion in cervical cancer to help select patients for limited EUA? Gynecol Oncol 2006;101:244-249 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.10.012
  21. Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D. MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1577-1587 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.1196
  22. AtcI N, Ozgur T, Ozturk F, DolapcIog˘lu KS. Utility of intravaginal ultrasound gel for local staging of cervical carcinoma on MRI. Clin Imaging 2016;40:1104-1107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.07.004
  23. Nam H, Huh SJ, Park W, Bae DS, Kim BG, Lee JH, et al. Prognostic significance of MRI-detected bladder muscle and/or serosal invasion in patients with cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2010;83:868-873 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/6646798
  24. Kim SH, Han MC. Invasion of the urinary bladder by uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:393-397 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016214
  25. Wakatsuki M, Kato S, Kiyohara H, Ohno T, Karasawa K, Tamaki T, et al. The prognostic value of rectal invasion for stage IVA uterine cervical cancer treated with radiation therapy. BMC Cancer 2016;16:244
  26. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105:103-104 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012
  27. Amendola MA, Hricak H, Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Chi DS, Long HJ 3rd, et al. Utilization of diagnostic studies in the pretreatment evaluation of invasive cervical cancer in the United States: results of intergroup protocol ACRIN 6651/GOG 183. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7454-7459 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.00.5397
  28. Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Zheng J, Ehrhardt JC, Sorosky JI, Magnotta VA, et al. Tumor size evaluated by pelvic examination compared with 3-D quantitative analysis in the prediction of outcome for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;39:395-404 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00318-0
  29. Siegel CL, Andreotti RF, Cardenes HR, Brown DL, Gaffney DK, Horowitz NS, et al. ACR appropriateness CriteriaⓇ pretreatment planning of invasive cancer of the cervix. J Am Coll Radiol 2012;9:395-402 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2012.02.021
  30. Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;143 Suppl 2:22-36 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12611
  31. Seki H, Azumi R, Kimura M, Sakai K. Stromal invasion by carcinoma of the cervix: assessment with dynamic MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:1579-1585 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.168.6.9168730
  32. Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS, Konishi I, Mikami M. Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system. Gynecol Oncol 2019;152:87-93 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.026
  33. Plante M, Renaud MC, Hoskins IA, Roy M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: a valuable fertility-preserving option in the management of early-stage cervical cancer. A series of 50 pregnancies and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 2005;98:3-10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.04.014
  34. Lee SI, Atri M. 2018 FIGO staging system for uterine cervical cancer: enter cross-sectional imaging. Radiology 2019;292:15-24 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190088
  35. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, Perego P, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 1997;350:535-540 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02250-2
  36. Signorelli M, Guerra L, Montanelli L, Crivellaro C, Buda A, Dell'Anna T, et al. Preoperative staging of cervical cancer: is 18-FDG-PET/CT really effective in patients with early stage disease? Gynecol Oncol 2011;123:236-240 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.07.096
  37. Berek JS, Matsuo K, Grubbs BH, Gaffney DK, Lee SI, Kilcoyne A, et al. Multidisciplinary perspectives on newly revised 2018 FIGO staging of cancer of the cervix uteri. J Gynecol Oncol 2019;30:e40
  38. Okamoto Y, Tanaka YO, Nishida M, Tsunoda H, Yoshikawa H, Itai Y. MR imaging of the uterine cervix: imagingpathologic correlation. Radiographics 2003;23:425-445 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.232025065
  39. Charles-Edwards E, Morgan V, Attygalle AD, Giles SL, Ind TE, Davis M, et al. Endovaginal magnetic resonance imaging of stage 1A/1B cervical cancer with A T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance technique: effect of lesion size and previous cone biopsy on tumor detectability. Gynecol Oncol 2011;120:368-373 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.10.013
  40. Carter J, Rowland K, Chi D, Brown C, Abu-Rustum N, Castiel M, et al. Gynecologic cancer treatment and the impact of cancer-related infertility. Gynecol Oncol 2005;97:90-95 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.12.019
  41. Dargent D, Martin X, Sacchetoni A, Mathevet P. Laparoscopic vaginal radical trachelectomy: a treatment to preserve the fertility of cervical carcinoma patients. Cancer 2000;88:1877-1882 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000415)88:8<1877::AID-CNCR17>3.0.CO;2-W
  42. Schlaerth JB, Spirtos NM, Schlaerth AC. Radical trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with uterine preservation in the treatment of cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:29-34 https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.124
  43. Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum NR, Gemignani ML, Chi DS, Brown CL, Poynor EA, et al. A fertility-sparing alternative to radical hysterectomy: how many patients may be eligible? Gynecol Oncol 2004;95:534-538 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.07.060
  44. Leblanc E, Narducci F, Ferron G, Querleu D. Indications and teaching of fertility preservation in the surgical management of gynecologic malignancies: European perspective. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:S32-S36 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.04.010
  45. Abu-Rustum NR, Sonoda Y. Fertility-sparing surgery in early-stage cervical cancer: indications and applications. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010;8:1435-1438 https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2010.0107
  46. Peppercorn PD, Jeyarajah AR, Woolas R, Shepherd JH, Oram DH, Jacobs IJ, et al. Role of MR imaging in the selection of patients with early cervical carcinoma for fertility-preserving surgery: initial experience. Radiology 1999;212:395-399 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.212.2.r99au01395
  47. de Boer P, Adam JA, Buist MR, van de Vijver MJ, Rasch CR, Stoker J, et al. Role of MRI in detecting involvement of the uterine internal os in uterine cervical cancer: systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. Eur J Radiol 2013;82:e422-e428 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.04.027
  48. Shepherd JH. Cervical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2012;26:293-309 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2011.12.004
  49. Schneider A, Erdemoglu E, Chiantera V, Reed N, Morice P, Rodolakis A, et al. Clinical recommendation radical trachelectomy for fertility preservation in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012;22:659-666 https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182466a0e
  50. Hockel M, Knapstein PG. The combined operative and radiotherapeutic treatment (CORT) of recurrent tumors infiltrating the pelvic wall: first experience with 18 patients. Gynecol Oncol 1992;46:20-28 https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(92)90189-P
  51. Kinkel K, Ariche M, Tardivon AA, Spatz A, Castaigne D, Lhomme C, 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 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.204.1.9205223
  52. Liu Y, Bai R, Sun H, Liu H, Wang D. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of uterine cervical cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009;33:858-862 https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e31819e93af
  53. Ryu SY, Kim MH, Choi SC, Choi CW, Lee KH. Detection of early recurrence with 18F-FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:347-352
  54. Mayr NA, Taoka T, Yuh WT, Denning LM, Zhen WK, Paulino AC, et al. Method and timing of tumor volume measurement for outcome prediction in cervical cancer using magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:14-22 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01808-9
  55. Wang JZ, Mayr NA, Zhang D, Li K, Grecula JC, Montebello JF, et al. Sequential magnetic resonance imaging of cervical cancer: the predictive value of absolute tumor volume and regression ratio measured before, during, and after radiation therapy. Cancer 2010;116:5093-5101 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25260
  56. Engin G. Cervical cancer: MR imaging findings before, during, and after radiation therapy. Eur Radiol 2006;16:313-324 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2804-z
  57. Park JJ, Kim CK, Park SY, Simonetti AW, Kim E, Park BK, 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2014.05.009
  58. Park JJ, Kim CK, Park BK. Prediction of disease progression following concurrent chemoradiotherapy for uterine cervical cancer: value of post-treatment diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur Radiol 2016;26:3272-3279 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4156-7
  59. Cibula D, Potter R, Planchamp F, Avall-Lundqvist E, Fischerova D, Haie Meder C, 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. Radiother Oncol 2018;127:404-416 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2018.03.003
  60. Vincens E, Balleyguier C, Rey A, Uzan C, Zareski E, Gouy S, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting residual disease in patients treated for stage IB2/II cervical carcinoma with chemoradiation therapy : correlation of radiologic findings with surgicopathologic results. Cancer 2008;113:2158-2165 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23817
  61. Addley HC, Vargas HA, Moyle PL, Crawford R, Sala E. Pelvic imaging following chemotherapy and radiation therapy for gynecologic malignancies. Radiographics 2010;30:1843-1856 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.307105063
  62. Jakubowicz J, Blecharz P, Skotnicki P, Reinfuss M, Walasek T, Luczynska E. Toxicity of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2014;35:393-399
  63. Narayanan P, Nobbenhuis M, Reynolds KM, Sahdev A, Reznek RH, Rockall AG. Fistulas in malignant gynecologic disease: etiology, imaging, and management. Radiographics 2009;29:1073-1083 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.294085223
  64. Angioli R, Penalver M, Muzii L, Mendez L, Mirhashemi R, Bellati F, et al. Guidelines of how to manage vesicovaginal fistula. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2003;48:295-304 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1040-8428(03)00123-9
  65. Yu NC, Raman SS, Patel M, Barbaric Z. Fistulas of the genitourinary tract: a radiologic review. Radiographics 2004;24:1331-1352  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.245035219