Staging and Follow-up of Primary Vaginal Cancer

Variant: 1 Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
US abdomen and pelvis transabdominal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pelvis transvaginal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Fluoroscopy contrast enema	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
US abdomen and pelvis transabdominal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pelvis transvaginal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Fluoroscopy contrast enema	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
US abdomen and pelvis transabdominal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US pelvis transvaginal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Fluoroscopy contrast enema	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (ie, only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (ie, more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.
A. CT Chest

Variant 1: Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.
B. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.
C. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 1: Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.
D. Fluoroscopy Contrast Enema

Variant 1: Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Pelvis

Variant 1: Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.
G. Radiography Intravenous Urography

Variant 1: Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.
H. US Pelvis Transvaginal

Variant 1: Vaginal cancer. Pretreatment staging. Initial imaging.
I. US Abdomen and Pelvis Transabdominal

Variant 2: Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.
A. CT Chest

Variant 2: Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.
B. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.
C. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 2: Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.
D. Fluoroscopy Contrast Enema

Variant 2: Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Pelvis

Variant 2: Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.
G. Radiography Intravenous Urography

Variant 2: Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.
H. US Abdomen and Pelvis Transabdominal

Variant 2: Posttreatment evaluation of vaginal cancer. No suspected recurrence. Initial imaging.
I. US Pelvis Transvaginal

Variant 3: Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.

Variant 3: Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.
A. CT Chest

Variant 3: Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.
B. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 3: Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.
C. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 3: Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.
D. Fluoroscopy Contrast Enema

Variant 3: Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Pelvis

Variant 3: Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 3: Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.
G. Radiography Intravenous Urography

Variant 3: Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.
H. US Pelvis Transvaginal

Variant 3: Vaginal Cancer. Suspected or known recurrence. Evaluate extent of disease. Initial imaging.
I. US Abdomen and Pelvis Transabdominal

Summary of Recommendations

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Adams TS, Cuello MA. Cancer of the vagina. International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics. 143 Suppl 2:14-21, 2018 Oct.
2.	Di Donato V, Bellati F, Fischetti M, Plotti F, Perniola G, Panici PB. Vaginal cancer. [Review]. Critical Reviews in Oncology-Hematology. 81(3):286-95, 2012 Mar.
3.	Gadducci A, Fabrini MG, Lanfredini N, Sergiampietri C. Squamous cell carcinoma of the vagina: natural history, treatment modalities and prognostic factors. [Review]. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 93(3):211-24, 2015 Mar.
4.	Rajaram S, Maheshwari A, Srivastava A. Staging for vaginal cancer. [Review]. Best Practice & Research in Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 29(6):822-32, 2015 Aug.
5.	Lee LJ, Jhingran A, Kidd E, et al. Acr appropriateness Criteria management of vaginal cancer. [Review]. Oncology (Williston Park). 27(11):1166-73, 2013 Nov.
6.	Tan Mbbs Mrcp Frcr Md LT, Tanderup Ph DK, Kirisits Ph DC, et al. Image-guided Adaptive Radiotherapy in Cervical Cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2019;29:284-98.
7.	Papadopoulou I, Stewart V, Barwick TD, et al. Post-Radiation Therapy Imaging Appearances in Cervical Carcinoma. [Review]. Radiographics. 36(2):538-53, 2016 Mar-Apr.
8.	Huertas A, Dumas I, Escande A, et al. Image-guided adaptive brachytherapy in primary vaginal cancers: A monocentric experience. Brachytherapy. 17(3):571-579, 2018 May - Jun.
9.	Manuel MM, Cho LP, Catalano PJ, et al. Outcomes with image-based interstitial brachytherapy for vaginal cancer. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 120(3):486-492, 2016 09.
10.	Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019;145:129-35.
11.	Guerri S, Perrone AM, Buwenge M, et al. Definitive Radiotherapy in Invasive Vaginal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review. Oncologist 2019;24:132-41.
12.	Vargo JA, Kim H, Choi S, et al. Extended field intensity modulated radiation therapy with concomitant boost for lymph node-positive cervical cancer: analysis of regional control and recurrence patterns in the positron emission tomography/computed tomography era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 90(5):1091-8, 2014 Dec 01.
13.	Gee MS, Atri M, Bandos AI, Mannel RS, Gold MA, Lee SI. Identification of Distant Metastatic Disease in Uterine Cervical and Endometrial Cancers with FDG PET/CT: Analysis from the ACRIN 6671/GOG 0233 Multicenter Trial. Radiology 2018;287:176-84.
14.	Shin MS, Shingleton HM, Partridge EE, Nicolson VM, Ho KJ. Squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Patterns of thoracic metastases. Invest Radiol. 30(12):724-9, 1995 Dec.
15.	Kim TH, Kim MH, Kim BJ, Park SI, Ryu SY, Cho CK. Prognostic Importance of the Site of Recurrence in Patients With Metastatic Recurrent Cervical Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 98(5):1124-1131, 2017 08 01.
16.	Shu T, Bai P, Zhang R, Li S. [Clinical analysis and prognostic factors in 106 patients with stage Ia-IIb cervical cancer with pulmonary metastasis]. [Chinese]. Chung Hua Chung Liu Tsa Chih. 36(9):703-7, 2014 Sep.
17.	Ki EY, Lee KH, Park JS, Hur SY. A Clinicopathological Review of Pulmonary Metastasis from Uterine Cervical Cancer. Cancer Res. Treat.. 48(1):266-72, 2016 Jan.
18.	Lamoreaux WT, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, et al. FDG-PET evaluation of vaginal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 62(3):733-737.
19.	Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(36):9329-9337.
20.	Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Magnetic resonance imaging for detection of parametrial invasion in cervical cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature between 2012 and 2016. [Review]. Eur Radiol. 28(2):530-541, 2018 Feb.
21.	Tsili AC, Tsangou V, Koliopoulos G, Stefos T, Argyropoulou MI. Early-stage cervical carcinoma: the role of multidetector CT in correlation with histopathological findings. J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;33:882-7.
22.	Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(17):3745-3749.
23.	Atri M, Zhang Z, Dehdashti F, et al. Utility of PET-CT to evaluate retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis in advanced cervical cancer: Results of ACRIN6671/GOG0233 trial. Gynecol Oncol. 142(3):413-9, 2016 Sep.
24.	Liu B, Gao S, Li S. A Comprehensive Comparison of CT, MRI, Positron Emission Tomography or Positron Emission Tomography/CT, and Diffusion Weighted Imaging-MRI for Detecting the Lymph Nodes Metastases in Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis Based on 67 Studies. [Review]. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 82(3):209-222, 2017.
25.	Liu FY, Yen TC, Chen MY, et al. Detection of hematogenous bone metastasis in cervical cancer: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography versus computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 115(23):5470-80, 2009 Dec 01.
26.	Robertson NL, Hricak H, Sonoda Y, et al. The impact of FDG-PET/CT in the management of patients with vulvar and vaginal cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 140(3):420-4, 2016 Mar.
27.	NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Cervical Cancer. Version 1.2020. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf.
28.	Taylor MB, Dugar N, Davidson SE, Carrington BM. Magnetic resonance imaging of primary vaginal carcinoma. Clin Radiol. 62(6):549-55, 2007 Jun.
29.	Husain A, Akhurst T, Larson S, Alektiar K, Barakat RR, Chi DS. A prospective study of the accuracy of 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG PET) in identifying sites of metastasis prior to pelvic exenteration. Gynecol Oncol. 106(1):177-80, 2007 Jul.
30.	Brar H, May T, Tau N, et al. Detection of extra-regional tumour recurrence with 18F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with recurrent gynaecological malignancies being considered for radical salvage surgery. Clinical Radiology. 72(4):302-306, 2017 Apr.
31.	Gardner CS, Sunil J, Klopp AH, et al. Primary vaginal cancer: role of MRI in diagnosis, staging and treatment. [Review]. British Journal of Radiology. 88(1052):20150033, 2015 Aug.
32.	Donati OF, Lakhman Y, Sala E, et al. Role of preoperative MR imaging in the evaluation of patients with persistent or recurrent gynaecological malignancies before pelvic exenteration. Eur Radiol. 2013 Oct;23(10):2906-15.
33.	Mongula J, Slangen B, Lambregts D, et al. Predictive criteria for MRI-based evaluation of response both during and after radiotherapy for cervical cancer. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy. 8(3):181-8, 2016 Jun.
34.	Vincens E, Balleyguier C, Rey A, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting residual disease in patients treated for stage IB2/II cervical carcinoma with chemoradiation therapy : correlation of radiologic findings with surgicopathologic results. Cancer. 113(8):2158-65, 2008 Oct 15.
35.	Byun JM, Kim YN, Jeong DH, Kim KT, Sung MS, Lee KB. Three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography for locally advanced cervical cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 23(8):1459-64, 2013 Oct.
36.	Moloney F, Ryan D, Twomey M, Hewitt M, Barry J. Comparison of MRI and high-resolution transvaginal sonography for the local staging of cervical cancer. J Clin Ultrasound. 44(2):78-84, 2016 Feb.
37.	Arribas S, Alcazar JL, Arraiza M, Benito A, Minguez JA, Jurado M. Three-Dimensional Transvaginal Sonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Cervical Cancer: An Agreement Study. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 35(5):867-73, 2016 May.
38.	Chiappa V, Di Legge A, Valentini AL, et al. Agreement of two-dimensional and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of parametrial infiltration in cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 45(4):459-69, 2015 Apr.
39.	Testa AC, Ludovisi M, Manfredi R, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of presence, size and extent of invasive cervical cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 34(3):335-44, 2009 Sep.
40.	Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma. JAMA. 2007; 298(19):2289-2295.
41.	Liu FY, Su TP, Wang CC, et al. Roles of posttherapy 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 45(7):1197-1204, 2018 07.
42.	Siva S, Herschtal A, Thomas JM, et al. Impact of post-therapy positron emission tomography on prognostic stratification and surveillance after chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer. Cancer. 117(17):3981-8, 2011 Sep 01.
43.	Salani R, Khanna N, Frimer M, Bristow RE, Chen LM. An update on post-treatment surveillance and diagnosis of recurrence in women with gynecologic malignancies: Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) recommendations. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jul;146(1):S0090-8258(17)30238-X.
44.	Bipat S, Glas AS, van der Velden J, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 91(1):59-66.
45.	Alcazar JL, Arribas S, Minguez JA, Jurado M. The role of ultrasound in the assessment of uterine cervical cancer. [Review]. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 64(5):311-6, 2014 Oct.
46.	Frank SJ, Jhingran A, Levenback C, Eifel PJ. Definitive radiation therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the vagina. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 62(1):138-147.
47.	Burger IA, Vargas HA, Donati OF, et al. The value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in recurrent gynecologic malignancies prior to pelvic exenteration. Gynecologic Oncology. 129(3):586-592, 2013 Jun.
48.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.