Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis and Staging

Donald G. Mitchell1, Peter Natale1, George Holland1

1 Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Publication Name:  Current Protocols in Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Unit Number:  Unit A20.2
DOI:  10.1002/0471142719.mia2002s06
Online Posting Date:  November, 2002
GO TO THE FULL TEXT: PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Abstract

This unit presents a basic protocol for detecting and staging ovarian cancer. The techniques are similar to those used for general imaging of the liver/abdomen and the pelvis for other applications.

     
 
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Table of Contents

  • Basic Protocol 1: Ovarian Cancer
  • Commentary
  • Figures
  • Tables
     
 
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Materials

Basic Protocol 1: Ovarian Cancer

  Materials
  • Normal saline (0.9% NaCl), sterile, 100 ml minimum
  • Extravascular contrast agent (e.g., Magnevist, Omniscan, or Prohance), 20 ml for most patients
  • 1 mg glucagon for intramuscular injection
  • 22‐G angiocatheter
  • Extension tubing (110‐in.)
  • Power injector
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Figures

Videos

Literature Cited

Literature Cited
   Earls, J.P., Rofsky, N.M., Lee, V.S., DeCorato, D.R., Krinsky, G.A., and Weinreb, J.C. 1997. Hepatic arterial‐phase dynamic gadolinium‐enhanced MR imaging: Optimization with a test examination and a power injector. Radiology 202:268‐273.
   Shellock, F.G. and Kanal, E. 1996. Magnetic Resonance Bioeffects, Safety, and Patient Management. Lippincott, Philadelphia.
Key References
   Kurtz, A.B., Tsimikas, J.V., Tempany, C.M., Hamper, U.M., Arger, P.H., Bree, R.L., Wechsler, R.J., Francis, I.R., Kuhlman, J.E., Siegelman, E.S., Mitchell, D.G., Silverman, S.G., Brown, D.L., Sheth, S., Coleman, B.G., Ellis, J.H., Kurman, R.J., Caudry, D.J., and McNeil, B.J. 1999. Diagnosis and staging of ovarian cancer: Comparative values of doppler and conventional US, CT, and MR imaging correlated with surgery and histopathologic analysis—report of the radiology diagnostic oncology group. Radiology 212:19‐27.
  A comprehensive multimodality multi‐institutional study
   Outwater, E.K., Huang, A.B., Dunton, C.J., Talerman, A., and Capuzzi, D.M. 1997. Papillary projections in ovarian neoplasms: Appearance on MRI. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 7:689‐695.
  MRI‐histogic correlation of ovarian cancer
   Semelka, R.C., Lawrence, P.H., Shoenut, J.P., Heywook, M., Kroeker, M.A., and Lotocki, R. 1993. Primary ovarian cancer: Prospective comparison of contrast‐enhanced CT and pre‐ and postcontrast, fat‐suppressed MR imaging, with histologic correlation. J. MRI 3:99‐106.
  Comparison between MRI and CT
   Shellock and Kanal, 1996. See above.
  Discussion of safety issues
   Yamashita, Y., Torashima, M., Hatanaka, Y., Harada, M., Higashida, Y., Takahashi, M., Mizutani, H., Tashiro, H., Iwamasa, J., Miyazaki, K., et al. 1995. Adnexal masses: Accuracy of characterization with transvaginal US and precontrast and postcontrast MR imaging. Radiology 194:557‐565.
  Comparison of MRI to ultrasound
Internet Resources
  http://www.mri.tju.edu
  A non‐commercial site that lists all body MRI protocols, continually updated, used by updated GE Signa scanners by the Thomas Jefferson University Department of Radiology. Additionally, there are descriptions and explanations of the various pulse sequences, tips for problems solving, examples of clinical applications.
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library