Лучевая диагностика рака шейки матки. Консенсус экспертов

Представленная статья отражает современный взгляд на возможности диагностического алгоритма рака шейки матки (РШМ) – одного из наиболее часто встречаемых злокачественных новообразований женской репродуктивной системы. Алгоритм изложен в виде консенсуса ведущих специалистов по лучевой диагностике и онкогинекологов, занимающихся проблемами диагностики и лечения РШМ. В статье изложены основные тренды по использованию методов лучевой диагностики, их роли и возможностях для стадирования РШМ, планированию и оценке эффективности проводимой терапии, динамическому наблюдению за пациентками, прошедшими специализированное противоопухолевое лечение.

1. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2009; 105 (2): 103–104. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012

2. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2019; 145 (1): 129–135. http://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12749

3. Bhatla N., Aoki D., Sharma D.N., Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2018; 143 (Suppl. 2): 22–36. http://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12611

4. Berek J.S., Matsuo K., Grubbs B.H. et al. Multidisciplinary perspectives on newly revised 2018 FIGO staging of cancer of the cervix uteri. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2019; 30 (2): e40. http://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e40

5. Bhatla N., Aoki D., Sharma D.N., Sankaranarayanan R. Corrigendum to “Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri”. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2019; 145: 129–135. http://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12969

6. Lee S.I., Atri M. 2018 FIGO staging system for uterine cervical cancer: enter cross-sectional imaging. Radiology. 2019; 292 (1): 15–24. http://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190088

7. Olawaiye A.B., Baker T.P., Washington M.K., Mutch D.G. The new (Version 9) American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor, node, metastasis staging for cervical cancer. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021; 71 (4): 287–298. http://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21663

8. FIGO CANCER REPORT 2021 Cancer of the cervix uteri: 2021 update International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 155 (S1). Special Issue: FIGO Cancer Report 2021 October: 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13967

9. Клинические рекомендации, одобренные научным советом МЗ РФ, Рак шейки матки, 2020 г. 48 с. https://oncology.ru/specialist/treatment/references/actual/537.pdf?ysclid=lp6m9w7k57670993368

10. Tian Y., Luo H. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination for local staging of cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med. Ultrason. 2022; 24 (3): 348–355. http://doi.org/10.11152/mu-3246

11. 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 (4): 641–655. http://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001216

12. Marth C., Landoni F., Mahner S. et al.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2017; 28 (Suppl_4): iv72–iv83. http://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx220

13. Chino J., Annunziata C.M., Beriwal S. et al. Radiation Therapy for Cervical Cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2020; 10 (4): 220–234. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2020.04.002

14. Hricak H., Gatsonis C., Chi D.S. 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): 9329–9337. http://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.02.0354

15. Xiao M., Yan B., Li Y. et al. Diagnostic performance of MR imaging in evaluating prognostic factors in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur. Radiol. 2020; 30 (3): 1405–1418. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06461-9

16. Thomeer M.G., Gerestein C., Spronk S. et al. Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma:systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Radiol. 2013; 23: 2005–2018. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2783-4

17. Manganaro L., Lakhman Y., Bharwani N. 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; 31 (10): 7802–7816. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07632-9. Erratum in: Eur. Radiol. 2021 Jun 17. PMID: 33852049

18. Bourgioti C., Chatoupis K., Moulopoulos L.A. Current imaging strategies for the evaluation of uterine cervical cancer. Wld J. Radiol. 2016; 8 (4): 342–354. http://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i4.342

19. Nogami Y., Iida M., Banno K. et al. Application of FDG-PET in cervical cancer and endometrial cancer: utility and future prospects. Anticancer Res. 2014; 34 (2): 585–592. PMID: 24510987

20. Mirpour S., Mhlanga J., Logeswaran P. et al. The role of PET/CT in the management of cervical cancer. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2013; 201 (2): W192–205. http://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9830

21. Choi H.J., Ju W., Myung S.K., 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 (6): 1471–1479. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01532.x

22. 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 metaanalysis based on 67 studies. Gynecol. Obstet Invest. 2017; 82 (3): 209–222. http://doi.org/10.1159/000456006

23. Ruan J., Zhang Y., Ren H. Meta-analysis of PET/CT Detect Lymph Nodes Metastases of Cervical Cancer. Open Med. (Wars.) 2018; 13: 436–442. http://doi.org/10.1515/med-2018-0065

24. Young P., Daniel B., Sommer G. et al. Intravaginal gel for staging of female pelvic cancers–preliminary report of safety, distention, and gel-mucosal contrast during magnetic resonance examination. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2012; 36 (2): 253–256. http://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3182483c05

25. Van Hoe L., Vanbeckevoort D., Oyen R. et al. Cervical carcinoma: optimized local staging with intravaginal contrast-enhanced MR imaging–preliminary results. Radiology. 1999; 213 (2): 608–611. http://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99oc23608

26. Akata D., Kerimoglu U., Hazirolan T. et al. Efficacy of transvaginal contrast-enhanced MRI in the early staging of cervical carcinoma. Eur. Radiol. 2005; 15 (8): 1727–1733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2645-9

27. Li X., Wang L., Li Y., Song P. The value of diffusionweighted imaging in combination with conventional magnetic resonance imaging for improving tumor detection for early cervical carcinoma treated with fertility-sparing surgery. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2017; 27 (8):1761–1768. http://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001113

28. Woo S., Moon M.H., Cho J.Y. et al. Diagnostic performance of MRI for assessing parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: a head-to-head comparison between oblique and true axial T2-weighted images. Korean J. Radiol. 2019; 20 (3): 378–384. http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0248

29. Hori M., Kim T., Onishi H. et al Uterine tumors: comparison of 3D versus 2D T2-weighted turbo spin-echo MR imaging at 3.0 T-initial experience. Radiology. 2011; 258 (1): 154–163. http://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100866

30. Hwang J., Hong S.S., Kim H.J. et al. Reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with cervical cancer. Br. J. Radiol. 2018; 91 (1087): 20170864. http://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170864

31. Huang J.-W., Song J.-C., Chen T. et al. Making the invisible visible: improving detectability of MRI-invisible residual cervical cancer after conisation by DCE-MRI. Clin. Radiol. 2019; 74 (2): 166.e15–166.e21. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.10.013

32. Bermudez A., Bhatla N., Leung E. FIGO cancer report 2015. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2015; 131: S88–95. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.004

33. Bentivegna E., Gouy S., Maulard A. et al. Oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17 (6): e240–e253. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30032-8

34. Zhang Q., Li W., Kanis M.J. et al. Oncologic and obstetrical outcomes with fertility-sparing treatment of cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017; 8 (28): 46580–46592. http://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.16233

35. Bentivegna E., Maulard A., Pautier P. et al. Fertility results and pregnancy outcomes after conservative treatment of cervical cancer: a systematic review of the Literature. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106 (5): 1195–1211.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.032

36. Koh W.J., Abu-Rustum N.R., Bean S. et al. Cervical Cancer, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2019; 17 (1): 64–84. http://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0001

37. Engin G. Cervical cancer: MR imaging findings before, during, and after radiation therapy. Eur. Radiol. 2006; 16 (2): 313–324. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2804-z

38. Hricak H., Yu K.K. Radiology in invasive cervical cancer. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1996; 167: 1101–1108. http://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.5.8911159

39. Lakhman Y., Akin O., Park K.J. et al. Stage IB1 cervical cancer: role of preoperative MR imaging in selection of patients for fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy. Radiology. 2013; 269 (1): 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121746

40. Noël P., Dubé M., Plante M., St-Laurent G. Early cervical carcinoma and fertility-sparing treatment options: MR imaging as a tool in patient selection and a follow-upmodality. Radiographics. 2014; 34 (4): 1099–1119. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.344130009

41. Downey K., Attygalle A.D., Morgan V.A. et al. Comparison of optimised endovaginal vs external array coil T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging techniques for detecting suspected early stage (IA/IB1) uterine cervical cancer. Eur. Radiol. 2016; 26 (4): 941–950. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3899-5

42. DeSouza N.M., Rockall A., Freeman S. Functional MR imaging in gynecologic cancer. Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. N. Am. 2016; 24 (1): 205–222. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2015.08.008

43. Woo S., Suh C.H., Kim S.Y. et al. 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 (2): 530–541. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4958-x

44. Park J.J., Kim C.K., Park S.Y., Park B.K. 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 (3): 734–741. http://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140920

45. Sala E., Rockall A.G., Freeman S.J. et al. The Added Role of MR Imaging in Treatment Stratification of Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies: What the Radiologist Needs to Know. Radiology. 2013; 266: 717–740. http://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120315

46. Raithatha A., Papadopoulou I., Stewart V. et al. Cervical cancer staging: a resident’s primer: women’s imaging. Radiographics. 2016; 36 (3): 933–934. http://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150173

47. Eisenhauer E.A., Therasse P., Bogaerts J. et. al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer. 2009; 45 (2): 228–247. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

48. Zhang A., Song J., Ma Z., Chen T. Application of apparent diffusion coefficient values derived from diffusion-weighted imaging for assessing different sized metastatic lymph nodes in cervical cancers. Acta Radiol. 2020; 61 (6): 848–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185119879686

49. Qi Y.F., He Y.L., Lin C.Y. et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of cervical cancer: Feasibility of ultra-high b-value at 3T. Eur. J. Radiol. 2020; 124: 108779. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108779

50. Elsholtz F.H.J., Asbach P., Haas M. et al. Introducing the Node Reporting and Data System 1.0 (Node-RADS): a concept for standardized assessment of lymph nodes in cancer. Eur. Radiol. 2021; 31 (8): 6116–6124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07572-4

51. Wong T.Z., Jones E.L., Coleman R.E. Positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose for evaluating local and distant disease in patients with cervical cancer. Mol. Imaging Biol. 2004; 6 (1): 55–62. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mibio.2003.12.004

52. Hameeduddin A., Sahdev A. Diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in assessing response and recurrent disease in gynaecological malignancies. Cancer Imaging. 2015; 15 (1): 3. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-015-0037-1

53. Young H., Baum R., Cremerius U. et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur. J. Cancer. 1999; 35 (13): 1773–1782. http://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00229-4

54. Wang X., Koch S. Positron emission tomography/ computed tomography potential pitfalls and artifacts. Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 2009; 38 (4): 156–169. http://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2008.01.001

55. Amit A., Person O., Keidar Z. FDG PET/CT in monitoring response to treatment in gynecological malignancies. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 25 (1): 17–22. http://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e32835a7e96

56. American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria: Pretreatment Planning of Invasive Cancer of the Cervix. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69461/Narrative/

57. Moore K.N., Herzog T.J., Lewin S. et al. A comparison of cisplatin/paclitaxel and carboplatin/paclitaxel in stage IVB, recurrent or persistent cervical cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2007; 105 (2): 299–303. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.12.031

58. Lorusso D., Petrelli F., Coinu A. et al. A systematic review comparing cisplatin and carboplatin plus paclitaxel-based chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014; 133 (1): 117–123. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.042

59. Bodurka-Bevers D., Morris M., Eifel P.J. et al. Posttherapy surveillance of women with cervical cancer: an outcomes analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 2000; 78 (2): 187–193. http://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2000.5860.

60. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Management of cervical cancer/ (SIGN guideline no 99) 2008; National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for cervical cancer/ 2022