ReviewCancers2024
Imaging in Vulval Cancer.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- PET Imaging in Vulvar Cancer: A Literature Review of the Current Evidence and Clinical Applications.Cancers · 2026Review
- Femoral vein ligation for groin recurrence in a woman with vulval squamous cell carcinoma: A case report.Case reports in women's health · 2025Article
- The Usefulness of Indocyanine Green in Modern Gynecological Oncology-Analysis, Literature Review, and Future Perspectives.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vulval cancer is a rare gynaecological cancer, accounting for 3% of all gynaecological malignancies, with 47,000 cases in 2022 globally. Various imaging modalities are widely used in conjunction with clinical assessment in the diagnosis and staging of vulval cancers; however, there is significant heterogeneity in which modalities are recommended in international guidelines, reflecting the paucity of evidence in this area. We reviewed the current evidence for the role of imaging in vulval cancer. A systematic search of the literature was performed on the PubMed database using the MeSH terms 'vulval neoplasm' and 'diagnostic imaging'. We found that there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of imaging for primary vulval tumours. For nodal assessment, there is no ideal imaging modality with sensitivity or specificity that is superior to other modalities. For distant metastases, CT CAP and FDG-PET/CT have the most evidence to support their use. In conclusion, the evidence for role of imaging in vulval cancer is limited by the heterogeneity of the study design and diagnostic criteria used in each study and the small sample size and retrospective nature of most studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.