ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2015
Craniocaudal tumour extension in uterine cervical cancer on MRI compared to histopathology.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Added Role of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Staging Uterine Cervical Cancer.Cureus · 2024Article
- Exclusion of non-Involved uterus from the target volume (EXIT-trial): An individualized treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer using modern radiotherapy and imaging techniques followed by completion surgery.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- What MRI-based tumor size measurement is best for predicting long-term survival in uterine cervical cancer?Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Prospective validation of craniocaudal tumour size on MR imaging compared to histoPAthology in patients with uterine cervical cancer: The MPAC study.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2019Article
- Cervical cancer apparent diffusion coefficient values during external beam radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019Article
- Target tailoring and proton beam therapy to reduce small bowel dose in cervical cancer radiotherapy : A comparison of benefits.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018Article
- Gross Tumor Delineation in Esophageal Cancer on MRI Compared WithAdvances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluation of craniocaudal tumour extension by comparing the craniocaudal tumour extension on the pre-operative MRI and post-operative hysterectomy specimen in patients with early stage uterine cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter approval of the institutional review board was acquired, pre-operative MRI and hysterectomy specimen of 21 women with early stage cervical cancer were re-evaluated. The craniocaudal extension on MRI was measured separately by two experienced radiologists and compared with corresponding measurements from the hysterectomy specimen, which were re-evaluated by an experienced pathologist.
resultsMedian craniocaudal extension of uterine cervical cancer on MRI was slightly smaller compared to histopathology (2.1 cm vs. 2.5 cm). The median underestimation was 0.4 cm (range -0.6 cm to 2.2 cm, mean 0.4 cm, standard deviation (SD) ±0.7 cm); Pearson's correlation was 0.83 (p < 0.001). In two patients (9%) MRI underestimated tumour craniocaudal extension by more than 1.8 cm.
conclusionMRI represents the histopathological craniocaudal tumour extension in the majority of patients with early stage uterine cervical cancer, but with a systematic small underestimation of the real craniocaudal tumour extension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.