Literature DB >> 17892456

Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of early cervical cancer.

D Fischerova1, D Cibula, H Stenhova, H Vondrichova, P Calda, M Zikan, P Freitag, J Slama, P Dundr, J Belacek.   

Abstract

The goal of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in comparison to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of tumor volume, early parametrial infiltration, and identification of residual tumor in early-stage cervical cancer. Patients in whom an early-stage cervical cancer was diagnosed by clinical examination were enrolled in the study. Only those patients who were examined by both MRI and TRUS with following surgical treatment were included. Imaging results were compared with pathology findings. Altogether, 120 patients were consecutively enrolled from January 2004 to February 2006. Data from 95 patients were evaluated. Correlation coefficient for TRUS- and MRI-derived volumes versus volumes at pathology reached R = 0.996 and R = 0.980, respectively. The accuracy for detecting tumor in 95 patients was 93.7% for TRUS and 83.2% for MRI (P <or= 0.006). In small tumors (<or=1 cm(3)), the accuracy of tumor detection by TRUS was 90.5% and 81.1% by MRI (P <or= 0.049). The accuracy of parametrial infiltration detection by TRUS and MRI was 98.9% and 94.7%, respectively (P <or= 0.219). The accuracy was not influenced by body mass index values. In conclusion, our results showed the accuracy of TRUS as being comparable to the more commonly used MRI in staging of early-stage cervical cancer. TRUS and the pathology-derived volumes correlated tightly; accuracy of TRUS was superior to MRI, especially in detection of residual tumors following conization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17892456     DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01072.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  30 in total

Review 1.  The role of ultrasound in the assessment of uterine cervical cancer.

Authors:  Juan Luis Alcázar; Sara Arribas; José Angel Mínguez; Matías Jurado
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2014-10-08

2.  Limited utility of magnetic resonance imaging in determining the primary site of disease in patients with inconclusive endometrial biopsy.

Authors:  Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz; Michael R Milam; Michael Deavers; Ricardo dos Reis; Revathy B Iyer; Priya Bhosale; Kathleen M Schmeler
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.437

3.  Local experience in cervical cancer imaging: Comparison in tumour assessment between TRUS and MRI.

Authors:  Claudia Ordeanu; Diana Cristina Pop; Radu Badea; Csaba Csutak; Nicolae Todor; Calin Ordeanu; Reka Kerekes; Ovidiu Coza; Viorica Nagy; Patriciu Achimas-Cadariu; Alexandru Irimie
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2015-02-17

Review 4.  Current imaging strategies for the evaluation of uterine cervical cancer.

Authors:  Charis Bourgioti; Konstantinos Chatoupis; Lia Angela Moulopoulos
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-04-28

Review 5.  Management of Stage IIB Cervical Cancer: an Overview of the Current Evidence.

Authors:  Shinya Matsuzaki; Maximilian Klar; Mikio Mikami; Muneaki Shimada; Brendan H Grubbs; Keiichi Fujiwara; Lynda D Roman; Koji Matsuo
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 5.075

6.  Cervical cancer in pregnant women: treat, wait or interrupt? Assessment of current clinical guidelines, innovations and controversies.

Authors:  Sileny N Han; Mina Mhallem Gziri; Kristel Van Calsteren; Frédéric Amant
Journal:  Ther Adv Med Oncol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 8.168

Review 7.  Ultrasound in gynecological cancer: is it time for re-evaluation of its uses?

Authors:  Daniela Fischerova; David Cibula
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.075

8.  Feasibility of transrectal ultrasonography for assessment of cervical cancer.

Authors:  M P Schmid; R Pötter; P Brader; A Kratochwil; G Goldner; K Kirchheiner; A Sturdza; C Kirisits
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 9.  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

10.  Stage IB1 cervical cancer: role of preoperative MR imaging in selection of patients for fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy.

Authors:  Yulia Lakhman; Oguz Akin; Kay J Park; Debra M Sarasohn; Junting Zheng; Debra A Goldman; Michael J Sohn; Chaya S Moskowitz; Yukio Sonoda; Hedvig Hricak; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.