CT/MRI of nodal metastases in pelvic cancer
- Janet E. Husband1
© International Cancer Imaging Society 2002
Accepted: 30 January 2002
Published: 5 May 2015
KeywordsCT MRI nodal metastases pelvic cancer
The accurate detection of lymph node metastases is one of the most important challenges in cancer imaging today, for the presence of nodal disease is a powerful adverse prognostic indicator. Pre-treatment detection of malignant nodes determines patient management, frequently distinguishing surgical candidates from those best suited to non-surgical therapy. However, the results of CT and MR imaging have been disappointing with poor sensitivities and specificities, low sensitivities being due to the inability to identify metastases in normal-sized nodes or those that are only minimally enlarged, and poor specificities resulting from nodal enlargement due to benign pathology. MR lymphography can demonstrate small nodal deposits, but the technique remains in the research arena, requires high-resolution thin sections to produce good image quality and is expensive. It is therefore likely to be used, at least for the foreseeable future, in highly selected patient groups. In order to give appropriate consideration to the likelihood of a prominent or enlarged lymph node harbouring a metastasis, it is incumbent on the radiologist to use all the relevant information available. This frequently requires discussion with clinicians or review of the patient’s case notes.
In order to provide the best possible assessment of nodal status with CT and MR, the radiologist requires detailed knowledge of: (1) the primary tumour in terms of the patterns of spread and the incidence of nodal metastases at different stages of disease; (2) the characteristic CT/MR features of nodal involvement; (3) the pitfalls in diagnosis of nodal disease; (4) the accuracy of imaging and the impact of positive and negative results on patient management.
The radiologist also needs information on the patient’s current therapy and previous treatment, as such knowledge may influence interpretation. For example, a patient who has previously been treated with pelvic radiotherapy is more likely to relapse in nodes outside the radiotherapy field, thus the development of nodal enlargement in the pelvis should be interpreted with caution. It is also important to know whether the patient has any coincidental disease that could be a cause of nodal enlargement.
The primary tumour: patterns of lymphatic spread and incidence of nodal involvement
In most pelvic cancers the incidence of nodal involvement increases with primary tumour stage and is also related to histological tumour grade and tumour bulk. The recurrence rate and overall survival are directly related to nodal spread.
Survival depends on the number of positive nodes: 5-year disease-free survival-solitary nodal involvement 75–80%; multiple nodes 20–30%.
High-risk patients have a 50% chance of nodal involvement. There is also an increased risk in clinical stage T3 disease.
Highand low-riskgroups may be used to select patients for lymphadenectomy and for imaging.
High-risk PSA ≥ 20 ng ml−1, Gleason score ≥ 7; Low-risk PSA < 20 ng ml−1, Gleason score <7.
Bladder cancer spreads to the paravesical, lateral sacral and presacral nodes, then to the obturator, hypogastric, external iliac and common iliac nodes.
Three-year survival with a solitary positive node is approximately 50%. Survival is reduced to approximately 25% if multiple nodes are involved. Node-negative patients have survival of approximately 70%.
PLND is only beneficial in selected patients with metastases confined to one or few nodes, as most patients with nodal metastases already have systemic spread.
Incidence of nodal metastases (%)
T1 (superficial into submucosa)
T2 (muscularis propria)
T3 (serosal invasion or invasion of perirectal fat)
Survival is significantly better for node-positive patients with 1–3 nodes involved compared with more than 3 nodes.
Total mesorectal excision is increasingly practised for rectal cancer with significant reduction in mortality and recurrence rates.
CT/MR findings of nodal involvement
Metastases from pelvic cancers frequently produce little, if any, nodal enlargement. Enlarged lymph nodes in the pelvis may be benign, due to reactive hyperplasia or inflammation. The criteria for assessment of nodal involvement include: (1) site; (2) size; (3) shape; (4) number of nodes; (5) nodal characteristics.
The anatomical position of nodes in relation to the pattern of spread of the primary tumour is important (vide supra).
Number of nodes
A cluster of normal nodes may suggest malignant involvement but asymmetry in the pelvis is common, making this sign less reliable.
Pelvic nodal metastases usually have a soft tissue-density, but other features may be helpful in diagnosing metastatic involvement.
Calcification is typically seen in rectal and ovarian cancer.
A low-density central area of necrosis is seen in large nodes greater than 2–3 cm.
Low-density ‘cystic’ nodes are seen typically in testicular cancer.
Nodes frequently enhance with intravenous contrast medium. If inhomogeneous enhancement of a large node is seen, this is more likely to be malignant, but homogeneous enhancement may be due to benign or malignant disease.
Avid enhancement suggests an aggressive tumour, a similar pattern often being seen in the primary tumour as well as in the lymph nodes.
Fatty infiltration indicates benign enlargement.
T1-weighted images show nodes which have low signal intensity but which are usually a little higher than normal vessels.
T2-weighted images show intermediate signal intensity. High signal intensity on fast spin-echo imaging may obscure visualisation of nodes against pelvic fat.
Heterogeneous nodes of intermediate signal on T2-weighted images are more likely to be malignant than homogenous nodes (Fig. 5). STIR sequence—high signal intensity is seen in enlarged lymph nodes and metastases cannot be distinguished from benign enlargement.
Tumours may enhance in a similar manner to CT.
Signal intensity time curves may be helpful for detecting nodal involvement in normal-sized nodes.
Pitfalls in diagnosis
These pitfalls are seen both with CT and MR. MR may be helpful in elucidating problems on CT and vice versa.
Accuracy of imaging and impact of positive and negative results on patient management
The overall accuracy of CT and MR imaging in detection of pelvic nodal disease is similar, with reported accuracies of between 75–100%. Sensitivities range from 48–87% and specificities from 64–100%[20–24]. Low sensitivities are the main problem with both techniques due to the inability to identify nodal metastases in normal or only minimally enlarged nodes. A recent study comparing dynamic helical CT with dynamic MR in patients with cervical cancer showed sensitivities of 64.7 and 70% respectively; specificities were 96.6 and 89.8% respectively. Thus no significant difference in accuracies with the techniques was observed using modern up-to-date equipment.
Interpretation and appropriate weighting should be given to the clinical importance of lymph node detection. For example in patients with prostate cancer being considered for pelvic lymphadenectomy, the diagnosis of metastatic nodal involvement may preclude surgery and thus the margin of error must be as small as possible. However, in patients to be treated with radiotherapy, the impact of a false-positive examination is less dramatic, potentially allowing a larger margin of error in lymph node detection.
As clinical practice develops, knowledge of nodal status may be important, not so much for determining whether or not to pursue a radical treatment approach, but rather in selecting different radical options, for example the type of surgery, the radiotherapy treatment volume or the need for adjuvant therapy. This approach is based on recent studies that have demonstrated that selected patients with nodal disease are curable. For example, the RTOG 75–06 study reported by Hanks et al. showed a 10-year cancer-free survival of 70% in node-positive patients and in another recent study of 790 patients with localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy, lymph node dissection and androgen deprivation, a 15-year disease specific survival of 60% in node-positive patients was demonstrated.
New developments and approaches to nodal staging
Reduction in size criteria
Oyen et al. showed a sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 97% in prostate cancer, using 6 mm as the upper limit of normal on CT. Fukuda et al. used 5 mm as the upper threshold (thin 3 mm sections) and showed accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 79.4, 85.7, 77.8, 50.0 and 95.5% respectively on CT. Current evidence of normal-sized nodes on CT and MR [14,16] suggests that reduction in threshold to 6 mm MSAD as the upper limit of normal might improve sensitivity. However the use of such lower criteria also raises important practical issues related to radiologists’ time and how best to deal with these minimally enlarged nodes in a given clinical scenario.
Oyen et al. have shown improved specificity by obtaining cytology from suspicious nodes greater than 6 mm in diameter. In their series, specificity was improved from 96.6 to 100%.
Fast dynamic contrast-enhanced CT
Obtaining signal intensity semi-quantitative data of contrast enhancement characteristics may be helpful for distinguishing malignant from benign nodes. Quantitative measurements of capillary permeability of tumour and nodes may provide more accurate assessment.
MR-guided biopsy of pelvic nodes
This also feasible but not yet generally performed in routine clinical practice.
MR lymphography using ultrasmall iron oxide particles (USIOP) already shows promise in identifying metastases in normal-sized nodes and will shortly be introduced into routine clinical practice.
- Golimbu M, Morales P, Al-Askari S et al. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostatic cancer. J Urol 1979; 121: 617–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Spencer J, Golding S. CT evaluation of lymph node status at presentation of prostatic carcinoma. Br J Radiol 1992; 65: 199–201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Perrin P, Fendler JP, Devonec M. Is lymph node dissection still needed in radical prostatectomy? In: Lymph Node Surgery in Urology, International Society of Urology Reports Donohue JP, ed. Oxford: ISIS Medical Media, 1995: 86–90.Google Scholar
- Neal AJ, Dearnaley DP. Prostate cancer: pelvic nodes revisited—sites, incidence and prospects for treatment with radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 1993; 5: 309–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Danella JF, de Kernion JB, Smith RB, Steckel J. The contemporary incidence of lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer: implications for laparoscopic lymph node dissection. J Urol 1993; 149: 1488–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bundrick WS, Culkin DJ, Mata JA et al. Evaluation of the current incidence of nodal metastasis from prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol 1993; 52: 269–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lerner SP, Skinner DG, Lieskovsky G et al. The rationale for en bloc pelvic lymph node dissection for bladder cancer patients with nodal metatases: long-term results. J Urol 1993; 149: 758–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Herr HW. Bladder cancer: pelvic lymphadenectomy revisited. J Surg Oncol 1988; 37: 242–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Blas Marin M, Rioja Sanz C, Rioja Sanz LA. Lymph nodes in bladder cancer. In: Lymph Node Surgery in Urology, International Society of Urology Reports Donohue JP, ed. Oxford: ISIS Medical Media, 1995: 37–42.Google Scholar
- Graham RA, Gainsey L, Jessup JM. Local excision of rectal carcinoma. Am J Surg 1990; 160: 306–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Willet GG, Tepper JE, Cohen AM et al. Failure patterns following curative resection for colonic cancer. Ann Surg 1984; 200: 685.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cohen AM, Tremittera S, Candela F et al. Prognosis of node positive colon cancer. Cancer 1991; 67: 1859.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McAnena OJ, Heald RJ, Lockhart-Mummery HE. Operative and functional results of total mesorectal excision with ultra-low anterior resection in the management of carcinoma of the lower one-third of the rectum. Surg Gynaecol Obstet 1990; 170: 517–21.Google Scholar
- Barentsz JO, Engelbrecht MRW, Witjes JAM et al. MR imaging of the male pelvis. Eur Radiol 1999; 9: 1722–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vinnicombe S, Norman A, Husband J, Nicolson V. Normal pelvic lymph nodes: documentation by CT scanning after bipedal lymphangiography. Radiology 1995; 194: 349–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grubnic S, Vinnicombe SJ, Norman A, Husband JE. MR evaluation of normal retroperitoneal and pelvic lymph nodes. Clin Radiol 2002; 57: 193–200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Roy C, le Bras Y, Mangold L et al. Small pelvic lymph node metastases: evaluation with MR imaging. Clin Radiol 1997; 52: 437–440.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Husband JE, Robinson L, Thomas G. Contrast enhancing lymph nodes in bladder cancer. Clin Radiol 1992; 45: 395–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barentsz JO, Jager GJ, van Vierzen P. Staging urinary bladder cancer after transurethral biopsy: the value of fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1996; 201: 185–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kim SH, Kim SC, Choi BI et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastasis with MR imaging. Radiology 1994; 190: 807–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thurnher SA. MR imaging of pelvic masses in women: contrast-enhanced vs. unenhanced images. Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159: 1243–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Outwater E, Kressel HY. Evaluation of gynaecologic malignancy by magnetic resonance imaging. Radiol Clin N Am 1992; 30: 789–806.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kim SH, Choi BI, Lee HP et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR findings. Radiology 1990; 175: 45–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Oyen RH, van Poppel HP, Ameye FE et al. Lymph node staging of localized prostatic carcinoma with CT and CT-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: prospective study of 285 patients. Radiology 1994; 190: 315–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yang WT, Lam WWM, Yu MY et al. Comparison of dynamic helical CT and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in cervical carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 759–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hanks GE, Buzydlowski J, Sause WT et al. Ten-year outcomes for pathologic node-positive patients treated in RTOG 75-06. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 40: 765–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fukuda H, Nakagawa T, Shibuya H. Metastases to pelvic lymph nodes from carcinoma in the pelvic cavity: diagnosis using thin-section CT. Clin Radiol 1999; 54: 237–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Weissleder R, Elizondo G, Wittenberg J et al. Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide: an intravenous contrast agent for assessing lymph nodes with MR imaging. Radiology 1990; 175: 494–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar