Literature DB >> 16361632

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.

Hedvig Hricak1, Constantine Gatsonis, Dennis S Chi, Marco A Amendola, Kathy Brandt, Lawrence H Schwartz, Susan Koelliker, Evan S Siegelman, Jeffrey J Brown, Robert B McGhee, Revathy Iyer, Kenneth M Vitellas, Bradley Snyder, Harry J Long, James V Fiorica, Donald G Mitchell.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) with each other and to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) clinical staging in the pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer, using surgicopathologic findings as the reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective multicenter clinical study was conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network and the Gynecologic Oncology Group from March 2000 to November 2002; 25 United States health centers enrolled 208 consecutive patients with biopsy-confirmed cervical cancer of FIGO stage > or = IB who were scheduled for surgery based on clinical assessment. Patients underwent FIGO clinical staging, helical CT, and MRI. Surgicopathologic findings constituted the reference standard for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Complete data were available for 172 patients; surgicopathologic findings were consistent with FIGO stages IA to IIA in 76% and stage > or = IIB in 21%. For the detection of advanced stage (> or = IIB), sensitivity was poor for FIGO clinical staging (29%), CT (42%), and MRI (53%); specificity was 99% for FIGO clinical staging, 82% for CT, and 74% for MRI; and negative predictive value was 84% for FIGO clinical staging, 84% for CT, and 85% for MRI. MRI (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.88) was significantly better than CT (AUC, 0.73) for detecting cervical tumors (P = .014). For 85% of patients, FIGO clinical staging forms were submitted after MRI and/or CT was performed.
CONCLUSION: CT and MRI performed similarly; both had lower staging accuracy than in prior single-institution studies. Accuracy of FIGO clinical staging was higher than previously reported. The temporal data suggest that FIGO clinical staging was influenced by CT and MRI findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16361632     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.0354

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  42 in total

Review 1.  The role of imaging in the management of non-metastatic cervical cancer.

Authors:  Orit Kaidar-Person; Roxolyana Bortnyak-Abdah; Amnon Amit; Alison Berniger; Rahamim Ben-Yosef; Abraham Kuten
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 3.064

2.  Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.

Authors:  Corinne Balleyguier; E Sala; T Da Cunha; A Bergman; B Brkljacic; F Danza; R Forstner; B Hamm; R Kubik-Huch; C Lopez; R Manfredi; J McHugo; L Oleaga; K Togashi; K Kinkel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Diagnosis and management of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Patrick Petignat; Michel Roy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-10-13

4.  In reply.

Authors:  Yoo-Kyung Lee; Seung-Su Han; Jae Weon Kim; Noh-Hyun Park; Yong-Sang Song; Soon-Beom Kang
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 4.401

5.  Role of computed tomography (CT) scan in staging of cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  T V Prasad; S Thulkar; S Hari; D N Sharma; S Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 6.  Intraoperative imaging in ovarian cancer: fact or fiction?

Authors:  Lucia M A Crane; Marleen van Oosten; Rick G Pleijhuis; Arash Motekallemi; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Ate G J van der Zee; Gooitzen M van Dam
Journal:  Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 4.488

7.  Surgical management of early cervical cancer: the shape of future studies.

Authors:  Stefano Greggi; Cono Scaffa
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 8.  Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Maarten G Thomeer; Cees Gerestein; Sandra Spronk; Helena C van Doorn; Els van der Ham; Myriam G Hunink
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Polymorphisms in MMP9 and SIPA1 are associated with increased risk of nodal metastases in early-stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  Rebecca Brooks; Nora Kizer; Loan Nguyen; Atthapon Jaishuen; Karolyn Wanat; Elizabeth Nugent; Perry Grigsby; Jenifer E Allsworth; Janet S Rader
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Localized cervical cancer (stage <IIB): accuracy of MR imaging in planning less extensive surgery.

Authors:  R Manfredi; B Gui; A Giovanzana; S Marini; M Di Stefano; G Zannoni; G Scambia; L Bonomo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.