Literature DB >> 19019414

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

Donald G Mitchell1, Bradley Snyder, Fergus Coakley, Caroline Reinhold, Gillian Thomas, Marco A Amendola, Lawrence H Schwartz, Paula Woodward, Harpreet Pannu, Mostafa Atri, Hedvig Hricak.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare MRI, CT, clinical exam and histopathological analysis for predicting lymph node involvement in women with cervical carcinoma, verified by lymphadenectomy.
METHODS: A 25-center ACRIN/GOG study enrolled 208 patients with biopsy-proven invasive cervical cancer for MRI and CT prior to attempted curative radical hysterectomy. Each imaging study was interpreted prospectively by one onsite radiologist, and retrospectively by 4 independent offsite radiologists, all blinded to surgical, histopathological and other imaging findings. Likelihood of parametrial and uterine body involvement was rated on a 5-point scale. Tumor size measurements were attempted in 3 axes. Association with histologic lymph node involvement, scored as absent, pelvic only and common iliac or paraaortic, was evaluated using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel statistics, univariate and multivariate logistic regression, generalized estimating equations, accuracy statistics and ROC analysis.
RESULTS: Lymphatic metastases were found in 34% of women; 13% had common iliac nodal metastases, and 9% had paraortic nodal metastases. Based on the retrospective multi-observer re-reads, the average AUC for predicting histologic lymph node involvement based on tumor size was higher for MRI versus CT, although formal statistic comparisons could not be conducted. Multivariate analysis showed improved model fit incorporating predictors from MRI, but not from CT, over and above the initial clinical and biopsy predictors, although the increase in discriminatory ability was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: MRI findings may help predict the presence of histologic lymph node involvement in women with early invasive cervical carcinoma, thus providing important prognostic information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19019414      PMCID: PMC2606919          DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  33 in total

1.  Patterns of failure and survival in locally advanced carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with high dose-rate intracavitary irradiation system.

Authors:  M Kataoka; M Kawamura; Y Nishiyama; K Hamamoto; K Hamada; H Iketani; S Matsu-Ura
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  The influence of surgical staging on the evaluation and treatment of patients with cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  J P LaPolla; J B Schlaerth; O Gaddis; C P Morrow
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.

Authors:  E R DeLong; D M DeLong; D L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Radiation therapy of para-aortic lymph nodes in cancer of the uterine cervix.

Authors:  U M Carl; J Bahnsen; T Wiegel
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.089

5.  Parametrial involvement, regardless of nodal status: a poor prognostic factor for cervical cancer.

Authors:  T G Zreik; J T Chambers; S K Chambers
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer.

Authors:  F Landoni; A Maneo; A Colombo; F Placa; R Milani; P Perego; G Favini; L Ferri; C Mangioni
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-08-23       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Cervical cancer with paraaortic metastases: significance of residual paraaortic disease after surgical staging.

Authors:  P Y Kim; B J Monk; S Chabra; R A Burger; S A Vasilev; A Manetta; P J DiSaia; M L Berman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 8.  FIGO stage, histology, histologic grade, age and race as prognostic factors in determining survival for cancers of the female gynecological system: an analysis of 1973-87 SEER cases of cancers of the endometrium, cervix, ovary, vulva, and vagina.

Authors:  C L Kosary
Journal:  Semin Surg Oncol       Date:  1994 Jan-Feb

9.  Carcinoma of the cervix: patterns of care studies: review of 1978, 1983, and 1988-1989 surveys.

Authors:  G S Montana; A L Hanlon; T J Brickner; J B Owen; G E Hanks; C C Ling; R Komaki; V A Marcial; G M Thomas; R Lanciano
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1995-07-30       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Rationale for using pathologic tumor dimensions and nodal status to subclassify surgically treated stage IB cervical cancer patients.

Authors:  R D Alvarez; M E Potter; S J Soong; F L Gay; K D Hatch; E E Partridge; H M Shingleton
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 5.482

View more
  14 in total

1.  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 2.  Fertility-sparing for young patients with gynecologic cancer: How MRI can guide patient selection prior to conservative management.

Authors:  Sinead H McEvoy; Stephanie Nougaret; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Elizabeth A Sadowski; Christine O Menias; Fuki Shitano; Shinya Fujii; Ramon E Sosa; Joanna G Escalon; Evis Sala; Yulia Lakhman
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-10

3.  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

4.  Patterns of care in patients with cervical cancer 2012: results of a survey among German radiotherapy departments and out-patient health care centers.

Authors:  S Marnitz; C Köhler; A Rauer; A Schneider; V Budach; A Tsunoda; M Mangler
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 5.  [Uterine cervical cancer : preoperative staging with magnetic resonance imaging].

Authors:  F Collettini; B Hamm
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  Aspects of Therapy for Cervical Cancer in Germany 2012 - Results from a Survey of German Gynaecological Hospitals.

Authors:  M Mangler; N Zech; A Schneider; C Köhler; S Marnitz
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.915

7.  One statistical test is sufficient for assessing new predictive markers.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Colin B Begg
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Imaging of endometrial and cervical cancer.

Authors:  Shilpa Patel; Sidath H Liyanage; Anju Sahdev; Andrea G Rockall; Rodney H Reznek
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2010-09-28

9.  The impact of irradiation dose on the computed tomography radiographic response of metastatic nodes and clinical outcomes in cervix cancer in a low-resource setting.

Authors:  Matthew Ryan McKeever; Lindsay Hwang; Jennifer Barclay; Yin Xi; April Bailey; Kevin Albuquerque
Journal:  South Asian J Cancer       Date:  2017 Apr-Jun

10.  A Network Meta-Analysis on the Diagnostic Value of Different Imaging Methods for Lymph Node Metastases in Patients With Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Qian Luo; Lan Luo; Liang Tang
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-01-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.