影像学检查在宫颈癌盆腹腔淋巴结转移诊断中的价值

doi:10.12280/gjfckx.20210895

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

2018年国际妇产科联盟（International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics,FIGO）更新宫颈癌分期,将治疗前影像学诊断盆腔淋巴结转移定义为ⅢC1r期,腹主动脉旁淋巴结转移定义为ⅢC2r期。术前影像学检查评估盆腹腔淋巴结是否转移与诊疗方案的制定相关,影像学准确地判断盆腹腔淋巴结状态可以明确分期,让患者接受规范的诊疗。目前临床上影像学检查方法众多,常用检查有B超、盆腔磁共振成像（magnetic resonance imaging,MRI）、计算机体层摄影术（computed tomography,CT）、正电子发射体层摄影术（positron emission tomography,PET）/CT及PET/MRI。B超经济方便,但对淋巴结检出率过低;CT在国内使用广泛、检查速度快,扫描范围大,临床应用易于推广,但CT诊断缺乏统一的诊断标准,诊断价值不突出;MRI具有良好的组织分辨率、能同时实现功能成像,但存在检查敏感度不高的情况;PET检查准确性较其他影像学检查较高,但其敏感度较MRI及CT检查并无统计学上的差异。

关键词: 宫颈肿瘤, 淋巴转移, 淋巴结, 肿瘤分期, 超声检查, 体层摄影术,X线计算机, 磁共振成像, 正电子发射断层显像术

Abstract:

In 2018, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) updated cervical cancer staging, defining pre-treatment imaging diagnosis of pelvic lymph node metastasis as stage ⅢC1r and paraaortic lymph node metastasis as stage ⅢC2r. Preoperative imaging assessment of pelvic and abdominal lymph node metastasis is related to the formulation of treatment plans, and accurate imaging judgment of pelvic and abdominal lymph node status can clarify the stage and allow patients to receive standardized treatment. There are many imaging methods in clinical practice, including ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and PET/MRI. Ultrasound is economical and convenient, but the detection rate of lymph nodes is too low. CT is widely used, with fast examination speed and large scanning range, which makes clinical application easy to promote, but the lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for CT diagnosis makes the diagnostic value not outstanding. MRI has good tissue resolution and can realize functional imaging at the same time, but the sensitivity of examination is not high. The accuracy of PET examination is higher than other imaging examinations, but its sensitivity is not statistically different from that of MRI and CT examination.

Key words: Uterine cervical neoplasms, Lymphatic metastasis, Lymph nodes, Neoplasm staging, Ultrasonography, Tomography,X-ray computed, Magnetic resonance imaging, Positron-emission tomography

刘益, 刘青, 刘开江, 程杰军. 影像学检查在宫颈癌盆腹腔淋巴结转移诊断中的价值[J]. 国际妇产科学杂志, 2022, 49(3): 296-301.

LIU Yi, LIU Qing, LIU Kai-jiang, CHENG Jie-jun. The Value of Imaging in the Diagnosis of Pelvic and Abdominal Lymph Node Metastasis in Cervical Cancer[J]. Journal of International Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2022, 49(3): 296-301.

参考文献 28

[1]	Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018, 68(6):394-424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492
[2]	Devine C, Viswanathan C, Faria S, et al. Imaging and Staging of Cervical Cancer[J]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR, 2019, 40(4):280-286. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2019.03.001. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2019.03.001
[3]	Jeong SY, Park H, Kim MS, et al. Pretreatment Lymph Node Metastasis as a Prognostic Significance in Cervical Cancer: Comparison between Disease Status[J]. Cancer Res Treat, 2020, 52(2):516-523. doi: 10.4143/crt.2019.328. doi: 10.4143/crt.2019.328
[4]	Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, et al. Cancer of the cervix uteri[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2018, 143(Suppl 2):22-36. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12611. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12611
[5]	Prativadi R, Dahiya N, Kamaya A, et al. Chapter 5 Ultrasound Characteristics of Benign vs Malignant Cervical Lymph Nodes[J]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR, 2017, 38(5):506-515. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2017.05.005. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2017.05.005
[6]	Haldorsen IS, Lura N, Blaakær J, et al. What Is the Role of Imaging at Primary Diagnostic Work-Up in Uterine Cervical Cancer?[J]. Curr Oncol Rep, 2019, 21(9):77. doi: 10.1007/s11912-019-0824-0. doi: 10.1007/s11912-019-0824-0 pmid: 31359169
[7]	Epstein E, Testa A, Gaurilcikas A, et al. Early-stage cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound - a European multicenter trial[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 128(3):449-453. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.09.025. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.09.025
[8]	Saleh M, Virarkar M, Javadi S, et al. Cervical Cancer: 2018 Revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging System and the Role of Imaging[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2020, 214(5):1182-1195. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21819. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21819
[9]	Zhang Y, Yan Y, Yang Y. Study on value of ultrasonic elastography in diagnosis of clinical staging of cervical cancer and efficacy evaluation of radiotherapy[J]. Oncol Lett, 2019, 17(6):4901-4906. doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.10190. doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.10190
[10]	Zheng W, Chen K, Peng C, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography vs MRI for evaluation of local invasion by cervical cancer[J]. Br J Radiol, 2018, 91(1091):20170858. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20170858. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20170858
[11]	Paño B, Sebastià C, Ripoll E, et al. Pathways of lymphatic spread in gynecologic malignancies[J]. Radiographics, 2015, 35(3):916-945. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015140086. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015140086
[12]	Fernando IN, Moskovic E, Fryatt I, et al. Is there still a role for lymphography in the management of early stage carcinoma of the cervix?[J]. Br J Radiol, 1994, 67(803):1052-1056. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-67-803-1052. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-67-803-1052
[13]	Chen J, He B, Dong D, et al. Noninvasive CT radiomic model for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in early cervical carcinoma[J]. Br J Radiol, 2020, 93(1108):20190558. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190558. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190558
[14]	Luo L, Luo Q, Tang L. Diagnostic value and clinical significance of MRI and CT in detecting lymph node metastasis of early cervical cancer[J]. Oncol Lett, 2020, 19(1):700-706. doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.11180. doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.11180
[15]	Yamanoi K, Matsumura N, Kido A, et al. A novel diagnostic criterion for lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer using multi-detector computed tomography[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 131(3):701-707. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.10.014. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.10.014 pmid: 24145112
[16]	Zhang R, Liu Z, Zhou C, et al. Diagnostic value of multi-slice spiral CT perfusion imaging in primary hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Minerva Med, 2021 Oct 21. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4806.21.07855-1. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4806.21.07855-1
[17]	Pan Z, Pang L, Ding B, et al. Gastric cancer staging with dual energy spectral CT imaging[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(2):e53651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053651
[18]	Testa AC, Di Legge A, De Blasis I, et al. Imaging techniques for the evaluation of cervical cancer[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2014, 28(5):741-768. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.04.009. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.04.009
[19]	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[J]. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 2017, 82(3):209-222. doi: 10.1159/000456006. doi: 10.1159/000456006
[20]	Shen G, Zhou H, Jia Z, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MRI for detection of pelvic metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Br J Radiol, 2015, 88(1052):20150063. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150063. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150063
[21]	Long L, Zhang H, He X, et al. Value of intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating metastatic from nonmetastatic mesorectal lymph nodes with different short-axis diameters in rectal cancer[J]. J Cancer Res Ther, 2019, 15(7):1508-1515. doi: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_76_19. doi: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_76_19
[22]	Kim SH, Cho SH. Assessment of pelvic lymph node metastasis in FIGO IB and IIA cervical cancer using quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters[J]. Diagn Interv Radiol, 2020, 26(5):382-389. doi: 10.5152/dir.2020.19365. doi: 10.5152/dir.2020.19365
[23]	Adam JA, van Diepen PR, Mom CH, et al. [(18)F]FDG-PET or PET/CT in the evaluation of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: A systematic review of the literature[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2020, 159(2):588-596. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.08.021. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.08.021
[24]	Atri M, Zhang Z, Dehdashti F, et al. Utility of PET-CT to evaluate retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis in advanced cervical cancer: Results of ACRIN6671/GOG0233 trial[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2016, 142(3):413-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.002. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.002
[25]	De Cuypere M, Lovinfosse P, Goffin F, et al. Added value of para-aortic surgical staging compared to (18)F-FDG PET/CT on the external beam radiation field for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: An ONCO-GF study[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2020, 46(5):883-887. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.11.496. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.11.496
[26]	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[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2018, 127(3):404-416. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.03.003. doi: S0167-8140(18)30135-X pmid: 29728273
[27]	Sarabhai T, Schaarschmidt BM, Wetter A, et al.Comparison of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and MRI for pre-therapeutic tumor staging of patients with primary cancer of the uterine cervix[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2018, 45(1):67-76. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3809-y. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3809-y
[28]	Nguyen NC, Beriwal S, Moon CH, et al. Diagnostic Value of FDG PET/MRI in Females With Pelvic Malignancy-A Systematic Review of the Literature[J]. Front Oncol, 2020, 10:519440. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.519440. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.519440