Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Oncology Reports
Published in: Current Oncology Reports 4/2016

Open Access 01-04-2016 | Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)

What Is the Best Preoperative Imaging for Endometrial Cancer?

Authors: Ingfrid S. Haldorsen, Helga B. Salvesen

Published in: Current Oncology Reports | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Although endometrial cancer is surgicopathologically staged, preoperative imaging is recommended for diagnostic work-up to tailor surgery and adjuvant treatment. For preoperative staging, imaging by transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is valuable to assess local tumor extent, and positron emission tomography-CT (PET-CT) and/or computed tomography (CT) to assess lymph node metastases and distant spread. Preoperative imaging may identify deep myometrial invasion, cervical stromal involvement, pelvic and/or paraaortic lymph node metastases, and distant spread, however, with reported limitations in accuracies and reproducibility. Novel structural and functional imaging techniques offer visualization of microstructural and functional tumor characteristics, reportedly linked to clinical phenotype, thus with a potential for improving risk stratification. In this review, we summarize the reported staging performances of conventional and novel preoperative imaging methods and provide an overview of promising novel imaging methods relevant for endometrial cancer care.
Literature
1.
Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, Timmerman D, Van LE, Vergote I. Endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2005;366(9484):491–505.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Salvesen HB, Haldorsen IS, Trovik J. Markers for individualised therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(8):e353–61.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Creasman WT, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Quinn MA, Beller U, Benedet JL, et al. Carcinoma of the corpus uteri. FIGO 6th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;95 Suppl 1:S105–43.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Oza AM, Elit L, Tsao MS, Kamel-Reid S, Biagi J, Provencher DM, et al. Phase II study of temsirolimus in women with recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer: a trial of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(24):3278–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):103–4.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kinkel K, Kaji Y, Yu KK, Segal MR, Lu Y, Powell CB, et al. Radiologic staging in patients with endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology. 1999;212(3):711–8.CrossRefPubMed
7.•
Husby JA, Reitan BC, Biermann M, Trovik J, Bjorge L, Magnussen IJ, et al. Metabolic tumor volume on 18F-FDG PET/CT improves preoperative identification of high-risk endometrial carcinoma patients. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(8):1191–8. MTV was found to predict deep myometrial invasion and lymph node metastases when adjusting for high-risk based on preoperative endometrial biopsy. The authors propose cut-offs for MTV for better preoperative prediction of deep myometrial invasion and lymph node metastases in endometrial cancer.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Husby JA, Salvesen OO, Magnussen IJ, Trovik J, Bjorge L, Salvesen HB, et al. Tumour apparent diffusion coefficient is associated with depth of myometrial invasion and is negatively correlated to tumour volume in endometrial carcinomas. Clin Radiol. 2015;70(5):487–94.CrossRefPubMed
9.•
Haldorsen IS, Stefansson I, Gruner R, Husby JA, Magnussen IJ, Werner HM, et al. Increased microvascular proliferation is negatively correlated to tumour blood flow and is associated with unfavourable outcome in endometrial carcinomas. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(1):107–14. Preoperative low tumor blood flow (based on DCE-MRI) was found to be associated with dismal prognosis and was negatively correlated to microvascular proliferation in tumor specimen of endometrial cancer patients. It is suggested that tumor hypoxia may be a driving factor associated with progression and metastatic spread in endometrial cancer.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Haldorsen IS, Gruner R, Husby JA, Magnussen IJ, Werner HM, Salvesen OO, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in endometrial carcinoma identifies patients at increased risk of recurrence. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(10):2916–25.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Epstein E, Van HC, Mascilini F, Masback A, Kannisto P, Ameye L, et al. Gray-scale and color Doppler ultrasound characteristics of endometrial cancer in relation to stage, grade and tumor size. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(5):586–93.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Alcazar JL, Galan MJ, Jurado M, Lopez-Garcia G. Intratumoral blood flow analysis in endometrial carcinoma: correlation with tumor characteristics and risk for recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;84(2):258–62.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Cao K, Gao M, Sun YS, Li YL, Sun Y, Gao YN, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of diffusion weighted MRI in endometrial carcinoma—relationship with local invasiveness. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(8):1926–30.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Nakamura K, Imafuku N, Nishida T, Niwa I, Joja I, Hongo A, et al. Measurement of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) of the primary tumor and CA125 are predictive of disease recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124(2):335–9.CrossRefPubMed
15.•
Antonsen SL, Loft A, Fisker R, Nielsen AL, Andersen ES, Hogdall E, et al. SUVmax of (18)FDG PET/CT as a predictor of high-risk endometrial cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129(2):298–303. PET-CT had better diagnostic performance than that of MRI or VUS for preoperative staging of lymph node metastases in a large multicenter study of endometrial cancer.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, Maeda T, Ebina Y, Yamada H, et al. Preoperative risk stratification using metabolic parameters of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with endometrial cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(8):1268–75.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Walentowicz-Sadlecka M, Malkowski B, Walentowicz P, Sadlecki P, Marszalek A, Pietrzak T, et al. The preoperative maximum standardized uptake value measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT as an independent prognostic factor of overall survival in endometrial cancer patients. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014234813.
18.
Trovik J, Wik E, Werner HM, Krakstad C, Helland H, Vandenput I, et al. Hormone receptor loss in endometrial carcinoma curettage predicts lymph node metastasis and poor outcome in prospective multicentre trial. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(16):3431–41.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Njolstad TS, Trovik J, Hveem TS, Kjaereng ML, Kildal W, Pradhan M, et al. DNA ploidy in curettage specimens identifies high-risk patients and lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(10):1656–64.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Mariani A, Sebo TJ, Katzmann JA, Keeney GL, Roche PC, Lesnick TG, et al. Pretreatment assessment of prognostic indicators in endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(6):1535–44.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Stefansson IM, Salvesen HB, Immervoll H, Akslen LA. Prognostic impact of histological grade and vascular invasion compared with tumour cell proliferation in endometrial carcinoma of endometrioid type. Histopathology. 2004;44(5):472–9.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer. 1987;60(8 Suppl):2035–41.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Tangen IL, Werner HM, Berg A, Halle MK, Kusonmano K, Trovik J, et al. Loss of progesterone receptor links to high proliferation and increases from primary to metastatic endometrial cancer lesions. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(17):3003–10.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Creasman WT. Prognostic significance of hormone receptors in endometrial cancer. Cancer. 1993;71(4 Suppl):1467–70.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Engelsen IB, Stefansson I, Akslen LA, Salvesen HB. Pathologic expression of p53 or p16 in preoperative curettage specimens identifies high-risk endometrial carcinomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(4):979–86.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Salvesen HB, Iversen OE, Akslen LA. Prognostic significance of angiogenesis and Ki-67, p53, and p21 expression: a population-based endometrial carcinoma study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(5):1382–90.PubMed
27.
Silverman MB, Roche PC, Kho RM, Keeney GL, Li H, Podratz KC. Molecular and cytokinetic pretreatment risk assessment in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77(1):1–7.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Wik E, Trovik J, Iversen OE, Engelsen IB, Stefansson IM, Vestrheim LC, et al. Deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy in endometrial carcinoma: a reproducible and valid prognostic marker in a routine diagnostic setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(6):603–7.PubMed
29.
Susini T, Amunni G, Molino C, Carriero C, Rapi S, Branconi F, et al. Ten-year results of a prospective study on the prognostic role of ploidy in endometrial carcinoma: dNA aneuploidy identifies high-risk cases among the so-called ‘low-risk’ patients with well and moderately differentiated tumors. Cancer. 2007;109(5):882–90.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Pradhan M, Abeler VM, Danielsen HE, Sandstad B, Trope CG, Kristensen GB, et al. Prognostic importance of DNA ploidy and DNA index in stage I and II endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(5):1178–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Werner HM, Trovik J, Marcickiewicz J, Tingulstad S, Staff AC, Amant F, et al. Revision of FIGO surgical staging in 2009 for endometrial cancer validates to improve risk stratification. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(1):103–8.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Lewin SN, Herzog TJ, Barrena Medel NI, Deutsch I, Burke WM, Sun X, et al. Comparative performance of the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics’ staging system for uterine corpus cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1141–9.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Savelli L, Ceccarini M, Ludovisi M, Fruscella E, De Iaco PA, Salizzoni E, et al. Preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer: transvaginal sonography vs. magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(5):560–6.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Alcazar JL, Pineda L, Martinez-Astorquiza CT, Orozco R, Utrilla-Layna J, Juez L, et al. Transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound for assessing myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: a comparison of six different approaches. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015;26(3):201–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.•
Fischerova D, Fruhauf F, Zikan M, Pinkavova I, Kocian R, Dundr P, et al. Factors affecting sonographic preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(5):575–85. Large preoperative tumor size at VUS predicts deep myometrial invasion and iso- or hypoechoic tumors are also associated with deep myometrial invasion.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Alcazar JL, Orozco R, Martinez-Astorquiza CT, Juez L, Utrilla-Layna J, Minguez JA, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound for preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015.
37.
Antonsen SL, Jensen LN, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Costa J, Tabor A, et al. MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer—a multicenter prospective comparative study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(2):300–8.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Alcazar JL, Galvan R, Albela S, Martinez S, Pahisa J, Jurado M, et al. Assessing myometrial infiltration by endometrial cancer: uterine virtual navigation with three-dimensional US. Radiology. 2009;250(3):776–83.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Kitajima K, Suzuki K, Senda M, Kita M, Nakamoto Y, Sakamoto S, et al. Preoperative nodal staging of uterine cancer: is contrast-enhanced PET/CT more accurate than non-enhanced PET/CT or enhanced CT alone? Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25(7):511–9.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Haldorsen IS, Salvesen HB. Staging of endometrial carcinomas with MRI using traditional and novel MRI techniques. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(1):2–12.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Haldorsen IS, Husby JA, Werner HM, Magnussen IJ, Rorvik J, Helland H, et al. Standard 1.5-T MRI of endometrial carcinomas: modest agreement between radiologists. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(7):1601–11.CrossRefPubMed
42.
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(12):2813–21.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Chang MC, Chen JH, Liang JA, Yang KT, Cheng KY, Kao CH. 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(11):3511–7.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Frei KA, Kinkel K. Staging endometrial cancer: role of magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(6):850–5.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Kinkel K, Forstner R, Danza FM, Oleaga L, Cunha TM, Bergman A, et al. Staging of endometrial cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(7):1565–74.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Sala E, Crawford R, Senior E, Shaw A, Simcock B, Vrotsou K, et al. Added value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in predicting advanced stage disease in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(1):141–6.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Grant P, Sakellis C, Jacene HA. Gynecologic oncologic imaging with PET/CT. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44(6):461–78.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Basu S, Li G, Alavi A. PET and PET-CT imaging of gynecological malignancies: present role and future promise. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2009;9(1):75–96.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Todo Y, Kato H, Kaneuchi M, Watari H, Takeda M, Sakuragi N. Survival effect of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet. 2010;375(9721):1165–72.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Sugimura K. Accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in detecting pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with uterine cancer. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(6):1529–36.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Alcazar JL, Jurado M. Three-dimensional ultrasound for assessing women with gynecological cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(3):340–6.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Whittaker CS, Coady A, Culver L, Rustin G, Padwick M, Padhani AR. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of female pelvic tumors: a pictorial review. Radiographics. 2009;29(3):759–74.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Lin G, Ng KK, Chang CJ, Wang JJ, Ho KC, Yen TC, et al. Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted 3.0-T MR imaging—initial experience. Radiology. 2009;250(3):784–92.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69(3):89–95.
55.
Galvan R, Merce L, Jurado M, Minguez JA, Lopez-Garcia G, Alcazar JL. Three-dimensional power Doppler angiography in endometrial cancer: correlation with tumor characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(6):723–9.PubMed
56.
Lee HJ, Ahn BC, Hong CM, Song BI, Kim HW, Kang S, et al. Preoperative risk stratification using (18)F-FDG PET/CT in women with endometrial cancer. Nuklearmedizin. 2011;50(5):204–13.CrossRefPubMed
57.•
Shim SH, Kim DY, Lee DY, Lee SW, Park JY, Lee JJ, et al. Metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis, measured using preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT, predict the recurrence of endometrial cancer. BJOG. 2014;121(9):1097–106. Preoperative MTV and TLG were found to be independent prognostic factors in endometrial cancer, and the authors propose cut-offs for MTV and TLG for risk stratification.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Nakamura K, Hongo A, Kodama J, Hiramatsu Y. The measurement of SUVmax of the primary tumor is predictive of prognosis for patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123(1):82–7.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Crivellaro C, Signorelli M, Guerra L, De PE, Pirovano C, Fruscio R, et al. Tailoring systematic lymphadenectomy in high-risk clinical early stage endometrial cancer: the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130(2):306–11.CrossRefPubMed
60.•
Ytre-Hauge S, Husby JA, Magnussen IJ, Werner HM, Salvesen OO, Bjorge L, et al. Preoperative tumor size at MRI predicts deep myometrial invasion, lymph node metastases, and patient outcome in endometrial carcinomas. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(3):459–66. Preoperative tumor size at MRI is a strong prognostic factor in endometrial cancer, and cut-offs for tumor diameter are proposed to predict deep myometrial invasion, lymph node metastases and dismal prognosis.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Todo Y, Watari H, Okamoto K, Hareyama H, Minobe S, Kato H, et al. Tumor volume successively reflects the state of disease progression in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129(3):472–7.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Todo Y, Choi HJ, Kang S, Kim JW, Nam JH, Watari H, et al. Clinical significance of tumor volume in endometrial cancer: a Japan-Korea cooperative study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131(2):294–8.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Shah C, Johnson EB, Everett E, Tamimi H, Greer B, Swisher E, et al. Does size matter? Tumor size and morphology as predictors of nodal status and recurrence in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99(3):564–70.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Chattopadhyay S, Cross P, Nayar A, Galaal K, Naik R. Tumor size: a better independent predictor of distant failure and death than depth of myometrial invasion in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I endometrioid endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(4):690–7.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Schink JC, Rademaker AW, Miller DS, Lurain JR. Tumor size in endometrial cancer. Cancer. 1991;67(11):2791–4.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Leach MO, Morgan B, Tofts PS, Buckley DL, Huang W, Horsfield MA, et al. Imaging vascular function for early stage clinical trials using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(7):1451–64.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Vaupel P, Mayer A. Hypoxia in cancer: significance and impact on clinical outcome. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2007;26(2):225–39.CrossRefPubMed
68.
69.
Nakamura K, Kodama J, Okumura Y, Hongo A, Kanazawa S, Hiramatsu Y. The SUVmax of 18F-FDG PET correlates with histological grade in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20(1):110–5.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Haldorsen IS, Popa M, Fonnes T, Brekke N, Kopperud R, Visser NC, et al. Multimodal imaging of orthotopic mouse model of endometrial carcinoma. PLoS One. 2015;10(8), e0135220.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
71.
Harry VN, Semple SI, Parkin DE, Gilbert FJ. Use of new imaging techniques to predict tumour response to therapy. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):92–102.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Celik O, Hascalik S, Sarac K, Meydanli MM, Alkan A, Mizrak B. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy of premalignant and malignant endometrial disorders: a feasibility of in vivo study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;118(2):241–5.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Okada T, Harada M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H, Aono T. Evaluation of female intrapelvic tumors by clinical proton MR spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(6):912–7.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Zhang J, Cai S, Li C, Sun X, Han X, Yang C, et al. Can magnetic resonance spectroscopy differentiate endometrial cancer? Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2552–60.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Han X, Kang J, Zhang J, Xiu J, Huang Z, Yang C, et al. Can the signal-to-noise ratio of choline in magnetic resonance spectroscopy reflect the aggressiveness of endometrial cancer? Acad Radiol. 2015;22(4):453–9.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Trousil S, Lee P, Pinato DJ, Ellis JK, Dina R, Aboagye EO, et al. Alterations of choline phospholipid metabolism in endometrial cancer are caused by choline kinase alpha overexpression and a hyperactivated deacylation pathway. Cancer Res. 2014;74(23):6867–77.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Ganeshan B, Miles KA. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity with CT. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13140–49.
78.
Lai CH, Lin G, Yen TC, Liu FY. Molecular imaging in the management of gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135(1):156–62.CrossRefPubMed
79.
Eriksson LS, Lindqvist PG, Floter RA, Dueholm M, Fischerova D, Franchi D, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound assessment of myometrial and cervical stromal invasion in women with endometrial cancer: interobserver reproducibility among ultrasound experts and gynecologists. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(4):476–82.CrossRefPubMed
80.
Hori M, Kim T, Murakami T, Imaoka I, Onishi H, Nakamoto A, et al. MR imaging of endometrial carcinoma for preoperative staging at 3.0 T: comparison with imaging at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30(3):621–30.CrossRefPubMed
81.
Rechichi G, Galimberti S, Signorelli 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(3):754–62.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
What Is the Best Preoperative Imaging for Endometrial Cancer?
Authors
Ingfrid S. Haldorsen
Helga B. Salvesen
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Oncology Reports / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1523-3790
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6269
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-016-0506-0

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Current Oncology Reports 4/2016 Go to the issue

Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)

Brachytherapy in Gynecologic Cancers: Why Is It Underused?

Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)

Lymphovascular Space Invasion as a Risk Factor in Early Endometrial Cancer

Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)

New Targeted Agents in Endometrial Cancer: Are We Really Making Progress?

Melanoma (RJ Sullivan, Section Editor)

Emerging Tissue and Blood-Based Biomarkers that may Predict Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

Cardio-oncology (EH Yang, Section Editor)

Cardiomyopathy in Childhood Cancer Survivors: Lessons from the Past and Challenges for the Future
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits