Literature DB >> 2315503

Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR findings.

S H Kim1, B I Choi, H P Lee, S B Kang, Y M Choi, M C Han, C W Kim.   

Abstract

Thirty patients with uterine cervical carcinoma underwent computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and surgical exploration. MR imaging was superior to CT in visualization of the tumor. MR imaging had an accuracy of 77% in the assessment of thickness of cervical stromal invasion. The accuracy rates of these modalities for parametrial evaluation were 78% for clinical evaluation, 70% for CT, and 92% for MR imaging. The overall accuracy rates for tumor staging were 70% for clinical evaluation, 63% for CT, and 83% for MR imaging. MR imaging is superior to clinical evaluation and CT in parametrial evaluation and the staging of uterine cervical carcinoma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2315503     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.175.1.2315503

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  23 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging in oncology.

Authors:  J E Husband; R Guy
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 2.  [Uterine cervical cancer : preoperative staging with magnetic resonance imaging].

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

3.  The value of MR imaging when the site of uterine cancer origin is uncertain.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Robert Soslow; Nadeem Abu-Rustum; Richard R Barakat; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  Recurrent uterine cervical carcinoma: spectrum of imaging findings.

Authors:  J I Choi; S H Kim; C K Seong; J S Sim; H J Lee; K H Do
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2000 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  Translating response during therapy into ultimate treatment outcome: a personalized 4-dimensional MRI tumor volumetric regression approach in cervical cancer.

Authors:  Nina A Mayr; Jian Z Wang; Simon S Lo; Dongqing Zhang; John C Grecula; Lanchun Lu; Joseph F Montebello; Jeffrey M Fowler; William T C Yuh
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 7.  Staging of carcinoma of the uterine cervix and endometrium.

Authors:  Takashi Koyama; Ken Tamai; Kaori Togashi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 7.034

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

Review 9.  Implications of the new FIGO staging and the role of imaging in cervical cancer.

Authors:  Aki Kido; Yuji Nakamoto
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 3.629

Review 10.  Nodal staging.

Authors:  Skandadas Ganeshalingam; Dow-Mu Koh
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.