Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39625593›Full record

ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025

Limited diagnostic performance of imaging evaluation for staging in gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma: a multi-center study.

Yuki Himoto, Aki Kido, Koji Yamanoi, Yasuhisa Kurata, Satoshi Morita, Nao Kikkawa, Hideyuki Fukui, Ayumi Ohya, Yuko Iraha, Takahiro Tsuboyama and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Lobular Endocervical Glandular Hyperplasia and Related Glandular Disorders: Current Status of Diagnosis with MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    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

15 authors.

Yuki HimotoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Shogoinkawahara-Cho 54, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. yhimoto@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8508-8221
Aki KidoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Shogoinkawahara-Cho 54, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Koji YamanoiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Yasuhisa KurataDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Shogoinkawahara-Cho 54, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Satoshi MoritaDepartment of Biomedical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Nao KikkawaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Hideyuki FukuiDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Ayumi OhyaDepartment of Radiology, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Nagano, Japan.
Yuko IrahaDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Science, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan.
Takahiro TsuboyamaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Kimiteru ItoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasunari FujinagaDepartment of Radiology, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Nagano, Japan.
Sachiko MinamiguchiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Masaki MandaiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Yuji NakamotoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Shogoinkawahara-Cho 54, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 20K16748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purposes of the study are to assess the diagnostic performance of preoperative imaging for staging factors in gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma (GEA) and to compare the performance for GEA with that of usual-type endocervical adenocarcinoma (UEA) among patients preoperatively deemed locally early stage (DLES) (< T2b without distant metastasis). MATERIALS AND

methodsFor this multi-center retrospective study, 58 patients were enrolled. All had undergone MRI with or without CT and FDG PET-CT preoperatively and had been pathologically diagnosed with GEA at five institutions. Based on the medical charts and radiological reports, the diagnostic performances of preoperative imaging for the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging factors were assessed retrospectively. Next, the imaging performance was assessed in preoperatively DLES-GEA (n = 36) and DLES-UEA (n = 136, with the same inclusion criteria). The proportions of underestimation of GEA and UEA were compared using Fisher's exact test.

resultsImaging diagnostic performance for GEA was limited, especially for sensitivity: parametrial invasion, 0.49; vaginal invasion, 0.54; pelvic lymph node metastasis (PELNM), 0.48; para-aortic lymph node metastasis, 0.00; and peritoneal dissemination, 0.25. Among preoperatively DLES patients, the proportions of underestimation were significantly higher in GEA than in UEA; parametrial invasion, 35% vs. 5% (p < 0.01); vaginal invasion, 28% vs. 6% (p < 0.01); PELNM, 24% vs. 6% (p < 0.05); peritoneal dissemination, 6% vs. 0% (p < 0.05).

conclusionAt present, preoperative imaging diagnostic performance for staging factors in GEA does not meet clinical expectations, especially for sensitivity. Among patients preoperatively DLES, the proportions of underestimation in GEA were significantly higher than in UEA. Future incorporation of approaches specifically emphasizing GEA is desirable to improve imaging performance.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCervix UteriFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedFluorodeoxyglucose F18Diagnostic performanceGastric-type endocervical adenocarcinomaMulti-center studyPreoperative imagingStaging

Identifiers

PMID39625593
PMCPMC12053355

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.