Cervical cancer staging - preoperative assessment of tumor extent (a review of the most recent ultrasound studies)

Authors: D. Fischerová
Authors‘ workplace: Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. A. Martan, DrSc.
Published in: Ceska Gynekol 2014; 79(6): 436-446


For treatment planning of cervical cancer it is necessary preoperatively to determine the presence and size of residual tumour after the biopsy, the tumour topography within the cervix and the parametrial and lymph node status. According to current data, ultrasound is comparably accurate with magnetic resonance imaging in view of tumour presence and local extent assessment. Ultrasound, if compared with the magnetic resonance imaging, does not have known contraindications and it is a broadly available diagnostic test. Currently no advanced imaging technique exists that can reliably detect infiltrated lymph nodes in the clinically early stage of the disease, as it often manifests as micrometastatic involvement in non-enlarged lymph nodes. The sensitivity of lymph node detection using ultrasound in the early stage is around 40%, but the specificity is high (96%). For daily practice, this means that a negative ultrasound finding should be always verified by surgical staging based on systematic lymphadenectomy, while positive ultrasound finding usually changes the treatment strategy.

cervical cancer, transrectal ultrasound, staging, lymph node, individualization of treatment


1. Amendola, MA., Hricak, H., Mitchell, DG., 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, 30, p. 7454–7459.

2. Arbyn, M., Castellsague, X., de Sanjose, S., et al. Worldwide burden of cervical cancer in 2008. Ann Oncol, 2011, 22, 12,p. 2675–2686.

3. 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, 5, p. 1102–1110.

4. Benedet, JL., Bender, H., Jones, H., 3rd, et al. FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2000, 70, 2, p. 209–262.

5. Cibula, D., Slama, J., Velechovska, P., et al. Factors affecting spontaneous voiding recovery after radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2010, 20, 4, p. 685–690.

6. Cibula, D., Velechovska, P., Slama, J., et al. Late morbidity following nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol, 2010, 116, 3, p. 506–511.

7. Cibula, D., Pinkavova, I., Dusek, L., et al. Local control after tailored surgical treatment of early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2011, 21, 4, p. 690–698.

8. Colombo, N., Carinelli, S., Colombo, A., et al. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol, 2012, 23, Suppl. 7, p. vii27–32.

9. Diaz, JP., Sonoda, Y., Leitao, MM., et al. Oncologic outcome of fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy versus radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol, 2008, 111, 2, p. 255–260.

10. Dušek, L. Epidemiologie zhoubných nádorů v České republice. 2010.

11. Epstein, E., Di Legge, A., Masback, A., et al. Sonographic characteristics of squamous cell cancer and adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 36, 4, p. 512–516.

12. Epstein, E., Testa, A., Gaurilcikas, A., et al. Early-stage cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound – an European multicenter trial. Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 128, 3, p. 449–453.

13. Fischerova, D., Cibula, D., Stenhova, H., et al. Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2008, 18, 4, p. 766–772.

14. Fischerova, D., Burgetova, A., Seidl, Z., Bělohlávek, O. Diagnostika zhoubného nádoru děložního hrdla. In Cibula, D. a Petruželka, L. Onkogynekologie. Praha: Grada Publishing, a. s., 2009, s. 405–411.

15. Fischerova, D., Novotný, J., Petruželka, L. Léčba zhoubného nádoru děložního hrdla (chemoterapie). In Cibula, D. a Petruželka, L. Onkogynekologie. Praha: Grada publishing, a. s., 2009,s. 412–426.

16. Fischerova, D. Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecological tumors: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 38, 3, p. 246–266.

17. Fischerova, D., Zikan, M., Pinkavova, I., et al. The role of ultrasound in planning fertility sparing surgery and individual treatment in early stage cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 40, Suppl. 1, p. 51.

18. Fischerova, D., Burgetova, A. Volba vhodné zobrazovací metody v onkogynekologii. Čes Gynekol, 2014, 79, 6, p 425–435.

19. Fischerová, D., Burgetová, A., Seidl, Z., Bělohlávek, O. Diagnostika. In Cibula, D., Petruželka, L. Onkogynekologie. Praha: Grada Publishing, 2009, s. 101–131.

20. Gaurilcikas, A., Vaitkiene, D., Cizauskas, A., et al. Early-stage cervical cancer: agreement between ultrasound and histopathological findings with regard to tumor size and extent of local disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 38, 6, p. 707–715.

21. Hricak, H., Lacey, CG., Sandles, LG., et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology, 1988, 166, 3, p. 623–631.

22. Hricak, H., Gatsonis, C., Chi, DS., et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651 – Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol, 2005, 23, 36, p. 9329–9337.

23. Chiappa, V., Di Legge, A., Valentini, AL., et al. Agreement of two-dimensional and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging with regard to parametrial infiltration in cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2014.

24. Choi, HJ., Roh, JW., Seo, SS., et al. Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer, 2006, 106, 4, p. 914–922.

25. Kim, SK., Choi, HJ., Park, SY., et al. Additional value of MR/PET fusion compared with PET/CT in the detection of lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients. Eur J Cancer, 2009, 45, 12, p. 2103–2109.

26. Kim, SM., Choi, HS., Byun, JS. Overall 5-year survival rate and prognostic factors in patients with stage IB and IIA cervical cancer treated by radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2000, 10, 4, p. 305–312.

27. 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, 36, p. 5687–5694.

28. Palsdottir, K., Fischerova, D., Franchi, D., et al. Preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis and deep stromal invasion in women with invasive cervical cancer – A prospective multicenter study on 2D and 3D ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2014.

29. Pecorelli, S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2009, 105, 2, p. 103–104.

30. Quinn, MA., Benedet, JL., Odicino, F., et al. Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. FIGO 26th Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2006, 95, Suppl. 1, p. S43–103.

31. Sankaranarayanan, R., Nene, BM., Shastri, SS., et al. HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med, 2009, 360, 14, p. 1385–1394.

32. Subak, LL., Hricak, H., Powell, CB., et al. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol, 1995, 86, 1, p. 43–50.

33. Testa, AC., Ludovisi, M., Manfredi, R., et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of presence, size and extent of invasive cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 34, 3, p. 335–344.

34. Timmerman, D., Valentin, L., Bourne, TH., et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2000, 16, 5, p. 500–505.

Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicine
Forgotten password

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account

Forgotten password

Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.


Don‘t have an account?  Create new account