Cervical cancer is still the fourth most common malignancy in women worldwide and has a high mortality rate. The prognosis as well as the therapy depends largely on the extent of the tumor at the time of initial diagnosis. This shows the importance of correct staging of cervical cancer. In order to promote a globally uniform approach, staging of cervical cancer in the past was based on widespread examinations such as exam under anesthesia, histology from cervical conization or biopsy, systematic lymphadenectomy, cystoscopy, proctoscopy, i. v.-pyelogram and chest X-ray. However, as the primary tumor stage was often underestimated, the 2018 revised FIGO classification now permits cross-sectional imaging techniques and pathological findings to be incorporated into disease staging or an already existing stage to be adapted based on radiological findings. Thanks to its excellent soft tissue contrast, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the method of choice for local-regional staging of cervical cancer, evaluating the response to treatment, detecting tumor recurrence and for follow-up examinations. It is important that radiologists interpreting pelvic MRI in case of suspected cervical cancer are familiar with the current FIGO staging system. This is the only way to determine the tumor stage as precisely as possible and thus lay the foundation for the success of therapy for patients. The aim of this review is to present the changes of the revised FIGO classification as well as to show the importance of MRI as the method of choice for local-regional tumor staging as a complement to clinical examination. Key Points:  Citation Format

Introduction Currently there is no consensus how hindfoot alignment (HA) should be assessed in CBCT scans. The aim of this study is to investigate how the reliability is affected by the anatomical structures chosen for the measurement. Materials and methods Datasets consisting of a Saltzman View (SV) and a CBCT of the same foot were acquired prospectively and independently assessed by five raters regarding HA. In SVs the HA was estimated as follows: transversal shift between tibial shaft axis and heel contact point (1); angle between tibial shaft axis and a tangent at the medial (2) or lateral (3) calcaneal wall. In CBCT the HA was estimated as follows: transversal shift between the centre of the talus and the heel contact point (4); angle between a perpendicular line and a tangent at the medial (5) or lateral (6) calcaneal wall; angle between the distal tibial surface and a tangent at the medial calcaneal wall (7). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. A linear regression was performed to compare the different measurement regarding their correlation. Results 32 patients were included in the study. The ICCs for the measurements 1–7 were as follows: (1) 0.924 [95% CI 0.876–0.959] (2) 0.533 [95% CI 0.377–0.692], (3) 0.553 [95% CI 0.399–0.708], (4) 0.930 [95% CI 0.866–0.962], (5) 0.00 [95% CI − 0.111 to 0.096], (6) 0.00 [95% CI − 0.103 to 0.111], (7) 0.152 [95% CI 0.027–0.330]. A linear regression between measurement 1 and 4 showed a correlation of 0.272 (p = 0.036). Conclusions It could be shown that reliability of measuring HA depends on the investigated anatomical structure. Placing a tangent along the calcaneus (2, 3, 5, 6, 7) was shown to be unreliable, whereas determining the weight-bearing heel point (1, 4) appeared to be a reliable approach. The correlation of the measurement workflows is significant (p = 0.036), but too weak (0.272) to be used clinically.