Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38398166›Full record

ReviewCancers2024

The Role of Imaging in Cervical Cancer Staging: ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines (Update 2023).

Daniela Fischerova, Filip Frühauf, Andrea Burgetova, Ingfrid S Haldorsen, Elena Gatti, David Cibula

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
21.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound examination in preoperative pelvic staging of early-stage cervical cancer: post-hoc analysis of SENTIX study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Daniela FischerovaGynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 121 08 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-7224-3218
Filip FrühaufGynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 121 08 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-4161-1890
Andrea BurgetovaDepartment of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 121 08 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-9975-2338
Ingfrid S HaldorsenMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, N-5021 Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9313-7564
Elena GattiDepartment of Biomedical Science for Health, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0009-0009-3774-6061
David CibulaGynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 121 08 Prague, Czech Republic.
Charles University · CZHaukeland University Hospital · NOUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic NU21-03-00461 and MH CZ-DRO-VFN64615
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) joint guidelines (2018) for the management of patients with cervical cancer, treatment decisions should be guided by modern imaging techniques. After five years (2023), an update of the ESGO-ESTRO-ESP recommendations was performed, further confirming this statement. Transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound (TRS/TVS) or pelvic magnetic resonance (MRI) enables tumor delineation and precise assessment of its local extent, including the evaluation of the depth of infiltration in the bladder- or rectal wall. Additionally, both techniques have very high specificity to confirm the presence of metastatic pelvic lymph nodes but fail to exclude them due to insufficient sensitivity to detect small-volume metastases, as in any other currently available imaging modality. In early-stage disease (T1a to T2a1, except T1b3) with negative lymph nodes on TVS/TRS or MRI, surgicopathological staging should be performed. In all other situations, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) or 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with CT (PET-CT) is recommended to assess extrapelvic spread. This paper aims to review the evidence supporting the implementation of diagnostic imaging with a focus on ultrasound at primary diagnostic workup of cervical cancer.

Indexed as

cervical cancerCTdiagnostic imagingMRIneoplasmPET-CTstagingultrasound

Identifiers

PMID38398166
PMCPMC10886638
OpenAlexW4391823048

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.