Invited Commentary

Abstract

HomeRadioGraphicsVol. 29, No. 4 PreviousNext RSNA Education ExhibitsInvited CommentaryKeyanoosh HosseinzadehKeyanoosh HosseinzadehAuthor AffiliationsDepartment of Radiology/Abdominal Imaging, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaKeyanoosh HosseinzadehPublished Online:Jul 1 2009https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.29.4.0291069MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In References1 NarayananP, Iyngkaran T, Sohaib SA, Reznek RH, Rockall AG. Pearls and pitfalls of MR lymphography in gynecologic malignancy. RadioGraphics2009; 29(4): 1057–1069; discussion 1069–1071. Link, Google Scholar2 SironiS, Buda A, Picchio M, et al. Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical early-stage cervical cancer: detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology2006; 238(1): 272–279. Link, Google Scholar3 ParkJY, Kim EN, Kim DY, et al. Comparison of the validity of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of patients with uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol2008; 108(3): 486–492. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 AnzaiY, Piccoli CW, Outwater EK, et al. Evaluation of neck and body metastases to nodes with ferumoxtran 10–enhanced MR imaging: phase III safety and efficacy study. Radiology2003; 228(3): 777–788. Link, Google Scholar5 HeesakkersRA, Hövels AM, Jager GJ, et al. MRI with a lymph-node-specific contrast agent as an alternative to CT scan and lymph-node dissection in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective multi-cohort study. Lancet Oncol2008; 9(9): 850–856. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6 SaksenaM, Harisinghani M, Kahn P, et al. Comparison of lymphotrophic nanoparticle-enhanced MRI sequences in patients with various primary cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol2006; 187(6): W582–W588. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7 LahayeMJ, Engelen SM, Kessels AG, et al. USPIO-enhanced MR imaging for nodal staging in patients with primary rectal cancer: predictive criteria. Radiology2008; 246(3): 804–811. Link, Google Scholar8 HarisinghaniMG, Dixon WT, Saksena MA, et al. MR lymphography: imaging strategies to optimize the imaging of lymph nodes with ferumoxtran-10. RadioGraphics2004; 24(3): 867–878. Link, Google Scholar9 MarianiA, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, et al. Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol2008; 109(1): 11–18. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryPublished in print: July 2009 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRecommended Articles 2018 FIGO Staging Classification for Cervical Cancer: Added Benefits of ImagingRadioGraphics2020Volume: 40Issue: 6pp. 1807-1822Update on MRI in Evaluation and Treatment of Endometrial CancerRadioGraphics2022Volume: 42Issue: 7pp. 2112-2130Utility of PET/CT to Evaluate Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Metastasis in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer: Results of ACRIN 6671/GOG 0233 TrialRadiology2017Volume: 283Issue: 2pp. 450-459Role of Imaging in Fertility-sparing Treatment of Gynecologic MalignanciesRadioGraphics2016Volume: 36Issue: 7pp. 2214-2233Applications of PET/MRI in Abdominopelvic OncologyRadioGraphics2021Volume: 41Issue: 6pp. 1750-1765See More RSNA Education Exhibits Multi-Modality Imaging of Gynecologic Malignancy: What the Radiation Oncologist Needs to KnowDigital Posters2018Cervical Carcinoma and Updated FIGO Staging: What Should Radiologists Know in 2019?Digital Posters2019Your Questions Answered: A Summary of the 2018 FIGO Staging Classification for Cervical CancerDigital Posters2019 RSNA Case Collection Locally advanced, metastatic prostate adenocarcinomaRSNA Case Collection2020Metastatic renal cell carcinomaRSNA Case Collection2022Pseudocirrhosis of Hepatic Breast MetastasesRSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 29, No. 4 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download