| Abstract: | Although vast differences exist among the many pelvic malignancies, several unifying concepts emerge from this discussion. First, there is a different role for diagnostic imaging for each type of pelvic malignancy. The radiologist should be aware that although the radiographic findings may be similar, the clinical impact varies greatly with a particular tumor. Second, although clinical staging is notoriously inaccurate, nevertheless diagnostic imaging techniques only improve upon but do not replace it because of false-positive and false-negative results. Third, because of the high false-negative rates of most of the modalities in use, negative studies do not in fact rule out the presence of disease. A surgical procedure may still be needed. Finally, several new techniques, including MRI and transrectal or transurethral ultrasound, may improve the accuracy rates. These developments will probably further enliven the controversies surrounding the radiologic evaluation of pelvic malignancies. |
