Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30758678›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2019

Role of MRI in staging and follow-up of endometrial and cervical cancer: pitfalls and mimickers.

María Milagros Otero-García, Alicia Mesa-Álvarez, Olivera Nikolic, Patricia Blanco-Lobato, Marijana Basta-Nikolic, Rafael Menéndez de Llano-Ortega, Laura Paredes-Velázquez, Nikola Nikolic, Magda Szewczyk-Bieda

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

María Milagros Otero-GarcíaDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Universitario de Vigo , Carretera Clara Campoamor 341, 36312, Vigo, Spain. Milagros.otero.garcia@sergas.es.
Alicia Mesa-ÁlvarezDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Olivera NikolicClinical Centre of Vojvodina, Centre of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.
Patricia Blanco-LobatoDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Universitario de Vigo , Carretera Clara Campoamor 341, 36312, Vigo, Spain.
Marijana Basta-NikolicClinical Centre of Vojvodina, Centre of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.
Rafael Menéndez de Llano-OrtegaDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Laura Paredes-VelázquezDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Universitario de Vigo , Carretera Clara Campoamor 341, 36312, Vigo, Spain.
Nikola NikolicCentre of Radiology, Clinical Centre of Vojvodina, Novi Sad, Serbia.
Magda Szewczyk-BiedaDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MRI plays important roles in endometrial and cervical cancer assessment, from detection to recurrent disease evaluation. Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common malignant tumor of the female genital tract in Western countries. EC patients are divided into risk categories based on histopathological tumor type, grade, and myometrial invasion depth. EC is surgically staged using the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) system. Since FIGO (2009) stage correlates with prognosis, preoperative staging is essential for tailored treatment. MRI reveals myometrial invasion depth, which correlates with tumor grade and lymph node metastases, and thus correlates with prognosis. Cervical cancer (CC) is the second most common cancer, and the third leading cause of cancer-related death among females in developing countries. The FIGO Gynecologic Oncology Committee recently revised its CC staging guidelines, allowing staging based on imaging and pathological findings when available. The revised FIGO (2018) staging includes node involvement and thus enables both therapy selection and evaluation, prognosis estimation, and calculation of end results. MRI can accurately assess prognostic indicators, e.g., tumor size, parametrial invasion, pelvic sidewall, and lymph node invasion. Despite these important roles of MRI, radiologists still face challenges due to the technical and interpretation pitfalls of MRI during all phases of endometrial and cervical cancer evaluation. Awareness of mimics that can simulate both cancers is critical. With careful application, functional MRI with DWI and DCE sequences can help establish a correct diagnosis, although it is sometimes necessary to perform biopsy and histopathological analysis.

Indexed as

Cervical cancerDiffusionEndometrial cancerLymph nodesMagnetic resonance

Identifiers

PMID30758678
PMCPMC6375059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.