Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31359169›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2019

What Is the Role of Imaging at Primary Diagnostic Work-Up in Uterine Cervical Cancer?

Ingfrid S Haldorsen, Njål Lura, Jan Blaakær, Daniela Fischerova, Henrica M J Werner

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. EANM/SNMMI practice guideline for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Associations between ADC histogram analysis values and tumor-micro milieu in uterine cervical cancer.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Staging by imaging in gynecologic cancer and the role of ultrasound: an update of European joint consensus statements.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Ingfrid S HaldorsenMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre, Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Jonas Liesvei 65, Postbox 7800, 5021, Bergen, Norway. ingfrid.haldorsen@helse-bergen.no.
Njål LuraMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre, Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Jonas Liesvei 65, Postbox 7800, 5021, Bergen, Norway.
Jan BlaakærDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Daniela FischerovaGynecological Oncology Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Henrica M J WernerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Haukeland University Hospital · NOCharles University · CZMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLOdense University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewFor uterine cervical cancer, the recently revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system (2018) incorporates imaging and pathology assessments in its staging. In this review we summarize the reported staging performances of conventional and novel imaging methods and provide an overview of promising novel imaging methods relevant for cervical cancer patient care. RECENT

findingsDiagnostic imaging during the primary diagnostic work-up is recommended to better assess tumor extent and metastatic disease and is now reflected in the 2018 FIGO stages 3C1 and 3C2 (positive pelvic and/or paraaortic lymph nodes). For pretreatment local staging, imaging by transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound (TVS, TRS) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is instrumental to define pelvic tumor extent, including a more accurate assessment of tumor size, stromal invasion depth, and parametrial invasion. In locally advanced cervical cancer, positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) or computed tomography (CT) is recommended, since the identification of metastatic lymph nodes and distant metastases has therapeutic consequences. Furthermore, novel imaging techniques offer visualization of microstructural and functional tumor characteristics, reportedly linked to clinical phenotype, thus with a potential for further improving risk stratification and individualization of treatment. Diagnostic imaging by MRI/TVS/TRS and PET-CT/CT is instrumental for pretreatment staging in uterine cervical cancer and guides optimal treatment strategy. Novel imaging techniques may also provide functional biomarkers with potential relevance for developing more targeted treatment strategies in cervical cancer.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCervical cancerDiffusion-weighted imagingImaging biomarkersMagnetic resonance imagingPositron emission tomographyTransvaginal ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID31359169
PMCPMC6663927
OpenAlexW2966093476

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.