The staging of cervical cancer: Inevitable discrepancies between clinical staging and pathologic findings
References (23)
- et al.
Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec
(1969) Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec
(1949)- et al.
Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec
(1955) - et al.
Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec
(1952) - et al.
Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec
(1958) Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec
(1927)Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec
(1932)American Joint Committee for Cancer Staging and End Results Reporting Clinical Staging Systems for Carcinoma of the Cervix
(1964)Annual Report on the Results of Radiotherapy in Cancer of the Uterine Cervix
(1941)Annual Report on the Results of Radiotherapy in Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix
(1952)
Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Carcinoma of the Uterus
Cited by (203)
Pathologic and clinical tumor size discordance in early-stage cervical cancer: Does it matter?
2020, Gynecologic OncologyCitation Excerpt :Despite the reliance of the current staging guidelines on physical exam findings, several prior studies have found that clinical staging is inaccurate in determining the true extent of disease in patients with cervical cancer. Ultimately, approximately 30% of patients are found to have more advanced disease than was originally estimated [2,15,16]. However, these studies included patients with locally advanced disease with a majority of the discrepancies being presence of previously undetected lymph node involvement or parametrial involvement.
Positron emission tomography with computed tomography imaging (PET/CT) for the radiotherapy planning definition of the biological target volume: PART 2
2019, Critical Reviews in Oncology/HematologyCitation Excerpt :In radiotherapy planning for gynecological cancer 18 FDG PET-CT plays a major role (Kidd et al., 2013; Schwarz et al., 2008a; Kidd et al., 2010a; Yildirim et al., 2008). Considering that prognosis also depends on para-aortic nodal status, pathological FDG uptake may indicate if radiation fields need to be extended to the para-aortic area, and/ or that total doses need to be increased to involved nodes within the pelvis and/or the para-aortic area (Lagasse et al., 1980; Van Nagell et al., 1971; Kupets and Covens, 2001; Esthappan et al., 2004; Kidd et al., 2010b; Belhocine et al., 2002; Stehman et al., 1991; Peters et al., 2000; Varia et al., 1998). Patients with positivepara-aortic nodes increased their survival rate when extended-field irradiation and concurrent radio-chemotherapy was administered (Lagasse et al., 1980; Van Nagell et al., 1971; Kupets and Covens, 2001; Esthappan et al., 2004; Kidd et al., 2010b).
PET/MR imaging of pelvic malignancies
2017, European Journal of RadiologyMagnetic Resonance Imaging of Gynecological Malignancies: Role in Personalized Management
2017, Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI
- ∗
American Cancer Society Advanced Clinical Fellow.