Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33649009›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2021

Imaging modalities in pregnant cancer patients.

Vincent Vandecaveye, Frédéric Amant, Frédéric Lecouvet, Kristel Van Calsteren, Raphaëla Carmen Dresen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Cervical cancer in the pregnant population.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Review
  11. Cancer in pregnancy: overview and epidemiology.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Review
  12. Ovarian cancer during pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Melanoma in pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Review
  16. Bioethical issues in imaging cancer in pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Article
  17. Effects of ionizing radiation exposure during pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Vincent VandecaveyeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium vincent.vandecaveye@uzleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0002-0800-3279
Frédéric AmantDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Frédéric LecouvetDepartment of Radiology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium.
Kristel Van CalsterenDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Raphaëla Carmen DresenDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BECliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer during pregnancy is increasingly diagnosed due to the trend of delaying pregnancy to a later age and probably also because of increased use of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy screening with incidental finding of maternal cancer. Pregnant women pose higher challenges in imaging, diagnosis, and staging of cancer. Physiological tissue changes related to pregnancy makes image interpretation more difficult. Moreover, uncertainty about the safety of imaging modalities, fear of (unnecessary) fetal radiation, and lack of standardized imaging protocols may result in underutilization of the necessary imaging tests resulting in suboptimal staging. Due to the absence of radiation exposure, ultrasound and MRI are obvious first-line imaging modalities for detailed locoregional disease assessment. MRI has the added advantage of a more reproducible comprehensive organ or body region assessment, the ability of distant staging through whole-body evaluation, and the combination of anatomical and functional information by diffusion-weighted imaging which obviates the need for a gadolinium-based contrast-agent. Imaging modalities with inherent radiation exposure such as CT and nuclear imaging should only be performed when the maternal benefit outweighs fetal risk. The cumulative radiation exposure should not exceed the fetal radiation threshold of 100 mGy. Imaging should only be performed when necessary for diagnosis and likely to guide or change management. Radiologists play an important role in the multidisciplinary team in order to select the most optimal imaging strategies that balance maternal benefit with fetal risk and that are most likely to guide treatment decisions. Our aim is to provide an overview of possibilities and concerns in current clinical applications and developments in the imaging of patients with cancer during pregnancy.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansNeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingNoninvasive Prenatal TestingPositron-Emission TomographyPregnancyPregnancy Complications, NeoplasticRadiation DosageRadiotherapyTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyinterventionalneoplasm metastasisneoplasmsradiology

Identifiers

PMID33649009
PMCPMC7925814
OpenAlexW3135761487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.