ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Preoperative assessment of tumor size by MRI and ultrasound in cervical cancer: a large-scale retrospective comparative study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAccurate preoperative evaluation of tumor sizes is essential for guiding optimal treatment planning in cervical cancer. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of preoperative tumor size measurement between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound.
methodsA retrospective study was performed involving 925 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer who underwent primary surgical treatment between January 2020 and June 2025. The accuracy of these two imaging modalities was assessed by comparing their measurements to the maximum tumor diameter determined through postoperative pathological analysis.
resultsThe Bland-Altman analysis showed that both ultrasound (mean difference: 1.50 mm) and MRI (mean difference: 0.61 mm) overestimated tumor size. In the paired subgroup of 757 patients who underwent both imaging modalities, the agreement rates between imaging and pathology for categorizing tumors into size groups were 65.8% for ultrasound and 67.6% for MRI (p = 0.360). Although MRI showed a significantly smaller mean measurement bias than ultrasound (0.73 mm vs. 1.37 mm; p = 0.012), the proportion of large errors (> 10 mm) was not significantly different. Multivariate analysis indicated that tumors > 40 mm assessed by ultrasound (OR = 2.85) or MRI (OR = 2.72) were significantly associated with increased likelihood of measurement discrepancies > 10 mm.
conclusionWhile MRI exhibited a lower measurement error compared to ultrasound, both modalities showed comparable performance in tumor size staging. Furthermore, for tumors exceeding 40 mm in diameter as determined by preoperative imaging, clinicians are advised to integrate clinical examination to enhance the accuracy of staging.
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.