Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31341971›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2019

Prospective validation of craniocaudal tumour size on MR imaging compared to histoPAthology in patients with uterine cervical cancer: The MPAC study.

Peter de Boer, Anje M Spijkerboer, Maaike C G Bleeker, Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen, Mélanie A Monraats, Aart J Nederveen, Marc J van de Vijver, Gemma G Kenter, Arjan Bel, Coen R N Rasch and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter de BoerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anje M SpijkerboerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Maaike C G BleekerDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Luc R C W van LonkhuijzenDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mélanie A MonraatsDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Aart J NederveenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marc J van de VijverDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gemma G KenterDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arjan BelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Coen R N RaschDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jaap StokerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lukas J A StalpersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the accuracy of MRI in detecting craniocaudal tumour extension, compared to histopathology, of the hysterectomy specimen in patients with early-stage uterine cervical cancer. Three complementary methods were investigated. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty-four patients with early-stage cervical cancer had pre-operative MRI, followed by radical hysterectomy or trachelectomy. 1) craniocaudal tumour extension was measured on MRI by two radiologists and compared to microscopy by a pathologist, 2) to compensate for changes in uterine shape between pre-operative MRI and the surgical specimen, craniocaudal tumour extensions were directly compared and appreciated as being a part of a 3-dimensional tumour by a radiation oncologist and resident, and 3) tumour size on MRI was compared macroscopically after digital non-rigid registration of the uterus, uterine cavity and tumour of both modalities.

resultsThe craniocaudal tumour extension measured on histopathology minus MRI gives: 1) on average +3 mm difference when measured by a radiologist compared to the microscopic extension (range -13 to +15 mm), 2) -0.2 mm (range -11 to +6.0 mm) when evaluated on MRI by a radiation oncologist compared to the macroscopic tumour; 3) after non-rigid organ registration, a margin of 10 mm around the tumour on MRI would be needed to cover 95% of the tumour in 90% of the patients.

conclusionsResults indicate that microscopic tumour extension towards the uterine fundus is within a margin of 10 mm around the visible tumour on MRI. The major source of measurement uncertainty is post-surgical change of organ shape and form.

Indexed as

Cervical cancerMRITumour size

Identifiers

PMID31341971
PMCPMC6610701
OpenAlexW2949208675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.