ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2024
The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in cervical cancer assessed in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Currently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most commonly used imaging method in the assessment of the loco-regional extension in cervical cancer. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (abbreviated CEUS) is being investigated as an alternative or complement to the MRI investigation. Objectives: To evaluate the performance of CEUS in identifying loco-regional invasion of cervical cancer compared to MRI, considered the accepted reference standard. Methods: Sixty-one patients with histopathologically confirmed cervical cancer were investigated as part of the pre-treatment workup by CEUS and MRI. We calculated the accuracy and concordance of CEUS versus MRI for tumor invasion in the vagina, bladder, rectum, parametrium, and uterus. For the time-intensity curve associated parameters analyzed (TTPK, AUC, peak intensity, wash in and wash out gradient) we calculated sensitivity, specificity and threshold value of positivity, for tumor invasion at the above-mentioned sites, with graphical representation of the ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve. Results: CEUS was highly accurate in detecting bladder (93.4%, 95% CI: 87.2-99.6) and uterine invasion (88.5%, 95% CI: 80.5-96.5). Substantial agreement between CEUS and MRI was observed for invasion in the uterine body (k=0.77, 95% CI: 0.56-0.98) and bladder (k=0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.77). ROC curve analysis for loco-regional invasions showed that the wash in gradient at a cut-off value of 2.23 had a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 67% in predicting uterine invasion. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate high accuracy and good agreement between CEUS and MRI regarding especially uterine and bladder invasion. This imaging method could help select patients in early stages for fertility sparing surgery, and also be of use in cases in which early bladder invasion is suspected.
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.