Izaskun Valduvieco1, Albert Biete1, Iván Rios1, Ricardo Llorente1, Angels Rovirosa1, Jaume Pahisa2, Laura Vidal2, Blanca Farrús1, Pilar Samper3. 1. Radiation Oncology Department, Institute of Haematology and Oncology (ICMHO), Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Hospital Clínic Universitari of Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Hospital Clínic Universitari of Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of our study is to evaluate the correlation between gynecological examination and magnetic resonance (MRI) findings for the assessment of local response in cervical cancer patients treated with radiotherapy/chemotherapy (RT/ChT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 75 consecutive cervical cancer patients from April 2004 to November 2009 treated with RT/ChT. Clinical and radiological data were subsequently analyzed. Patient's median age was 51 with a FIGO stage from Ib to IVb. Individualized RT/ChT was administered with a median dose of 45 Gy. Sixty-three patients received a complementary brachytherapy. Seventy-one patients received chemotherapy on a weekly basis. Gynecological exam was performed 3 months and 6 months after treatment and these findings were compared to MRI results at the same time. STATISTIC ANALYSIS: We used the Spearman's Rho test to determine the correlation level between the clinical and radiological methods. RESULTS: A correlation of 0.68 (60%) was observed between the clinical and MRI findings at 3 months with a further increase of up to 0.86 (82.6%) at 6 months. In the few cases with a poor correlation, the subsequent assessment and the natural history of the disease showed a greater value of the clinical exam as compared with the MRI findings. CONCLUSIONS: Physical exam remains an essential tool to evaluate the local response to RT/ChT for cervical cancer. The optimal clinical radiological correlation found at 6 months after treatment suggests that the combination of gynecological examination and MRI are probably adequate in patient monitoring.
BACKGROUND: The aim of our study is to evaluate the correlation between gynecological examination and magnetic resonance (MRI) findings for the assessment of local response in cervical cancer patients treated with radiotherapy/chemotherapy (RT/ChT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 75 consecutive cervical cancer patients from April 2004 to November 2009 treated with RT/ChT. Clinical and radiological data were subsequently analyzed. Patient's median age was 51 with a FIGO stage from Ib to IVb. Individualized RT/ChT was administered with a median dose of 45 Gy. Sixty-three patients received a complementary brachytherapy. Seventy-one patients received chemotherapy on a weekly basis. Gynecological exam was performed 3 months and 6 months after treatment and these findings were compared to MRI results at the same time. STATISTIC ANALYSIS: We used the Spearman's Rho test to determine the correlation level between the clinical and radiological methods. RESULTS: A correlation of 0.68 (60%) was observed between the clinical and MRI findings at 3 months with a further increase of up to 0.86 (82.6%) at 6 months. In the few cases with a poor correlation, the subsequent assessment and the natural history of the disease showed a greater value of the clinical exam as compared with the MRI findings. CONCLUSIONS: Physical exam remains an essential tool to evaluate the local response to RT/ChT for cervical cancer. The optimal clinical radiological correlation found at 6 months after treatment suggests that the combination of gynecological examination and MRI are probably adequate in patient monitoring.
Entities:
Keywords:
Assessment of local response; Cervical cancer; Correlation clinical/radiological
Authors: Laurie Elit; Anthony W Fyles; Michaela C Devries; Thomas K Oliver; Michael Fung-Kee-Fung Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-06-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: F Heinzelmann; G Henke; M von Grafenstein; N Weidner; F Paulsen; A Staebler; S Brucker; M Bamberg; M Weinmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: K Hatano; Y Sekiya; H Araki; M Sakai; T Togawa; Y Narita; Y Akiyama; S Kimura; H Ito Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038