» Articles » PMID: 17131207

Metastatic Lymph Nodes in Urogenital Cancers: Contribution of Imaging Findings

Overview
Journal Abdom Imaging
Date 2006 Nov 30
PMID 17131207
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The presence of nodal metastasis in patients with urogenital malignancies is an important factor for prognosis, and radiologic identification of enlarged nodes greatly affects treatment choices. Radiologic evaluation for nodal metastases is usually performed with computed tomography, but magnetic resonance imaging is also useful in evaluating primary and nodal metastases in pelvic tumors. On these cross-sectional modalities, nodal metastases are usually suspected according to location and size criteria. Although there has been no general consensus on the criteria, a short axis diameter of 8 to 10 mm is generally applied. However, radiologic evaluation does not always provide sufficient accuracy for nodal staging because of an inability to diagnose smaller metastatic lymph nodes. The clinical significance of a radiologic recognition of enlarged nodes also differs by cancer type in relation to differences in staging systems and treatment. The presence of regional lymphadenopathy in patients with renal cell carcinoma often alters surgical methods, whereas the presence of regional lymphadenopathy is an indication of systemic chemotherapy in patients with cancers of the urinary tract, prostate, and testicles. In this report, preferential sites and staging of nodal metastasis and contributions of radiologic imaging are reviewed for each urogenital cancer.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of response to gemcitabine plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy using positron emission computed tomography for metastatic bladder cancer.

Ozturk H, Karapolat I World J Clin Cases. 2024; 11(36):8447-8457.

PMID: 38188218 PMC: 10768499. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i36.8447.


Can magnetic resonance imaging replace conventional computerized tomography for follow-up of patients with testicular cancer? A systematic review.

Busch J, Schmidt S, Albers P, Heinzelbecker J, Kliesch S, Lackner J World J Urol. 2022; 40(12):2843-2852.

PMID: 35037965 PMC: 9712293. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-03931-6.


Comparing RECIST with EORTC criteria in metastatic bladder cancer.

Ozturk H J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015; 142(1):187-94.

PMID: 26208817 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-015-2022-2.


[Pharmacological therapy of urogenital cancer: rational routine diagnostic imaging].

Heidenreich A, Krege S Urologe A. 2013; 52(11):1564-73.

PMID: 24197084 DOI: 10.1007/s00120-013-3253-y.


Potential therapeutic strategies for lymphatic metastasis.

Zwaans B, Bielenberg D Microvasc Res. 2007; 74(2-3):145-58.

PMID: 17950368 PMC: 2525453. DOI: 10.1016/j.mvr.2007.08.006.