Abstract
Multiple imaging techniques can be utilized to evaluate the uterus. Ultrasound is the initial examination of choice to diagnose benign and malignant uterine conditions. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the best technique for the evaluation of uterine anomalies, treatment planning of leiomyomas, and guiding treatment selection for uterine malignancies. Computerized tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT have complementary roles with MRI in the staging of advanced cervical carcinoma and evaluating recurrent disease.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arger PH. Transvaginal ultrasonography in postmenopausal patients. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30(4):759–67.
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. 2010;21(5):1102–10.
Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(1):181–200.
Brown HK, Stoll BS, Nicosia SV, et al. Uterine junctional zone: correlation between histologic findings and MR imaging. Radiology. 1991;179(2):409–13.
Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(11):1797–803.
Goldfarb S, McCullough PA, McDermott J, Gay SB. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury: specialty-specific protocols for interventional radiology, diagnostic computed tomography radiology, and interventional cardiology. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(2):170–9.
Hori M, Kim T, Murakami T, 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.
Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology. 2004;230(3):619–28.
Kataoka M, Isoda H, Maetani Y, et al. MR imaging of the female pelvis at 3 Tesla: evaluation of image homogeneity using different dielectric pads. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(6):1572–7.
Keller TM, Michel SC, Frohlich J, et al. USPIO-enhanced MRI for preoperative staging of gynecological pelvic tumors: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(6):937–44.
Kinkel K, Forstner R, Danza FM, et al. Staging of endometrial cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(7):1565–74.
Kuo PH, Kanal E, Abu-Alfa AK, Cowper SE. Gadolinium-based MR contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Radiology. 2007;242(3):647–9.
Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(25):2500–7.
Lin MC, Gosink BB, Wolf SI, et al. Endometrial thickness after menopause: effect of hormone replacement. Radiology. 1991;180(2):427–32.
Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Magnotta VA, et al. Tumor perfusion studies using fast magnetic resonance imaging technique in advanced cervical cancer: a new noninvasive predictive assay. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;36(3):623–33.
Mitchell DG, Schonholz L, Hilpert PL, Pennell RG, Blum L, Rifkin MD. Zones of the uterus: discrepancy between US and MR images. Radiology. 1990;174(3 Pt 1):827–31.
Moschos E, Ashfaq R, McIntire DD, Liriano B, Twickler DM. Saline-infusion sonography endometrial sampling compared with endometrial biopsy in diagnosing endometrial pathology. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(4):881–7.
Nishizawa S, Inubushi M, Okada H. Physiological 18 F-FDG uptake in the ovaries and uterus of healthy female volunteers. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(5):549–56.
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.
Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D. MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(6):1577–87.
Sala E, Rockall A, Rangarajan D, Kubik-Huch RA. The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the female pelvis. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76(3):367–85.
Shellock FG, Spinazzi A. MRI safety update 2008: part 1, MRI contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(4):1129–39.
Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):191–9.
von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF. Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiology. 2006;238(2):405–22.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this entry
Cite this entry
Burger, I.A., Freeman, S.J., Sala, E. (2013). Uterus: Imaging Techniques and Normal Anatomy. In: Hamm, B., Ros, P.R. (eds) Abdominal Imaging. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13327-5_178
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13327-5_178
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-13326-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-13327-5
eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine