Literature DB >> 12788184

Comparison of prognostic value of MRI and FIGO stage among patients with cervical carcinoma treated with radiotherapy.

Takeshi Kodaira1, Nobukazu Fuwa, Takafumi Toita, Yoshihito Nomoto, Kazuo Kuzuya, Hiroyuki Tachibana, Kazuhisa Furutani, Kazuhiko Ogawa.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of MRI and FIGO stage, we performed retrospective multicenter analysis of patients with Stage II-III disease treated with radiation alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From three institutions, 164 patients diagnosed with cervical carcinoma were entered into the study. The majority of this cohort received intracavitary brachytherapy combined with external beam radiotherapy (n = 161). Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the prognostic factors for overall survival (OAS), disease-free survival (DFS), pelvic control (PC), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS).
RESULTS: The 5-year OAS, DFS, PC, and DMFS rates were 68.8%, 60.4%, 77.4%, and 71.7%, respectively. Using uni- and multivariate analyses, both large tumor size/volume and positive lymph node enlargement (LN) showed a significantly unfavorable influence on survival and local and/or distant failure (p < 0.05). Using these two prognostic factors, patients were divided into three subgroups; the 5-year DFS rates of patients with risk 0 (volume </=50 cc and negative LN), 1 (volume >50 cc or positive LN), and 2 (volume >50 cc and positive LN) were 72.9%, 53.3%, and 26.1%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Among patients with volume </=50 cc, disease stage proved to be a significantly prognostic factor of OAS, DFS, and PC (p < 0.05). However, these correlations were not observed in the large volume group (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: MRI will provide more useful and practical information than will FIGO stage classification for patients with bulky disease, although this will remain a prognostic factor for patients with nonbulky disease (volume </=50 cc). With the aid of MRI, accurate and practical evaluation of clinical outcome could be achieved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12788184     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00007-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  12 in total

1.  LTPB2 acts as a prognostic factor and promotes progression of cervical adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Yuan Ren; Huan Lu; Danmei Zhao; Yangjun Ou; Kang Yu; Jiandong Gu; Li Wang; Shuheng Jiang; Mo Chen; Jinghao Wang; Rong Zhang; Congjian Xu
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 4.060

2.  Node-by-node correlation between MR and PET/CT in patients with uterine cervical cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging versus size-based criteria on T2WI.

Authors:  Eugene K Choi; Jeong Kon Kim; Hyuck Jae Choi; Seong Ho Park; Bum-Woo Park; Namkug Kim; Jae Seung Kim; Ki Chun Im; Gyunggoo Cho; Kyoung-Sik Cho
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-11       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Volume Measurement by Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Shinya Fujii; Naoki Iwata; Chie Inoue; Naoko Mukuda; Takeru Fukunaga; Toshihide Ogawa
Journal:  Yonago Acta Med       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 1.641

4.  The SUVmax (maximum standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose) and serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-ag) function as prognostic biomarkers in patients with primary cervical cancer.

Authors:  LingLing Pan; JingYi Cheng; Min Zhou; ZhiFeng Yao; YingJian Zhang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-11-20       Impact factor: 4.553

5.  Oesophageal cancer: assessment of tumour response to chemoradiotherapy with tridimensional CT.

Authors:  Rita Alfieri; Giovanna Pintacuda; Matteo Cagol; Tommaso Occhipinti; Ivan Capraro; Marco Scarpa; Gianpietro Zanchettin; Francesco Cavallin; Mauro Michelotto; Luciano Giacomelli; Ermanno Ancona; Carlo Castoro
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  Early invasive cervical cancer: MRI and CT predictors of lymphatic metastases in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 intergroup study.

Authors:  Donald G Mitchell; Bradley Snyder; Fergus Coakley; Caroline Reinhold; Gillian Thomas; Marco A Amendola; Lawrence H Schwartz; Paula Woodward; Harpreet Pannu; Mostafa Atri; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-11-20       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Prognostic Significance of Clinicopathological Factors Influencing Overall Survival and Event-Free Survival of Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Shengwei Kang; Junxiang Wu; Jie Li; Qing Hou; Bin Tang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2022-03-09

8.  Analysis of factors contributing to the low survival of cervical cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy in Kenya.

Authors:  Innocent O Maranga; Lynne Hampson; Anthony W Oliver; Anas Gamal; Peter Gichangi; Anselmy Opiyo; Catharine M Holland; Ian N Hampson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The value of prognostic factors for uterine cervical cancer patients treated with irradiation alone.

Authors:  Rūta Grigiene; Konstantinas P Valuckas; Eduardas Aleknavicius; Juozas Kurtinaitis; Simona R Letautiene
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2007-12-22       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  Is extended-field concurrent chemoradiation an option for radiologic negative paraaortic lymph node, locally advanced cervical cancer?

Authors:  Mushabbab Al Asiri; Mutahir A Tunio; Reham Mohamed; Yasser Bayoumi; Abdulrehman Alhadab; Rasha M Saleh; Muhannad Saud AlArifi; Abdelaziz Alobaid
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2014-09-09       Impact factor: 3.989

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.