European Journal of Cancer
Volume 44, Issue 11 , Pages 1524-1528 , July 2008

The validity of tumour diameter assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and gross specimen with regard to tumour volume in cervical cancer patients

  • Dae Chul Jung

      Affiliations

    • Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
    • ,
  • Woong Ju

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mok-Dong Hosptial, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    • ,
  • Hyuck Jae Choi

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, 388-1, Poongnap-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel.: +82 2 3010 5686; fax: +82 2 476 4719.
    • ,
  • Sokbom Kang

      Affiliations

    • Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
    • ,
  • Sohee Park

      Affiliations

    • Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
    • ,
  • Chong Woo Yoo

      Affiliations

    • Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
    • ,
  • Sang-Yoon Park

      Affiliations

    • Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

Received 13 March 2008 ,Revised 14 April 2008 ,Accepted 17 April 2008.

References 

  1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, et al. Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000. Int J Cancer. 2001;94:153–156
  2. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:535–540
  3. Hawnaur JM, Johnson RJ, Buckley CH, et al. Staging, volume estimastion and assessment of nodal status in carcinoma of the cervix: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with surgical findings. Clin Radiol. 1994;49:443–452
  4. Mayr NA, magnotta VA, Ehrhardt JC, et al. Usefulness of volumetry by magnetic resonance imaging in assessing response to radiation therapy in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;35:915–924
  5. Vorgias G, Katsoulis M, Argyrou K, et al. Preoperative imaging of primary intra-abdominal gynaecological malignancies: Diagnostic accuracy of CT-scan and MRI-a greek cohort study. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2002;23:139–144
  6. Pete I, Godeny M, Toth E, et al. Prediction of cervical infiltration in stage II endometrial cancer by different preoperative evaluation techniques (D& C, US, CT, MRI). Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24:517–522
  7. Wagenar HC, Trimbos JB, Postema S, et al. Tumor diameter and volume assessed by magnetic resonance imaging in the prediction of outcome for invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;82:474–482
  8. Van Nagell JR, Roddick JW, Lowin DM. The staging of cervical caner: inevitable discreancies between clinical staging and pathologic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971;110:973–978
  9. http://www-class.unl.edu/psycrs/statpage/comp.html.
  10. Van Nagell JR, Roddick JW, Lowin DM. The staging of cervical caner: inevitable discreancies between clinical staging and pathologic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971;110:973–978
  11. Averette HE, Ford JH, Dudan RC, et al. Staging of cervical cancer. Clin Ogstet Gynecol. 1975;18:215–232
  12. Lagasse LD, Creasman WT, Shingleton HM, et al. Results and complications of operative staging in cervical cancer: experience of the Gynecologi Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol. 1980;9:90–98
  13. Creasman WT. New gynecologic cancer staging. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;58:157–158
  14. Mayr NA, Magnotta VA, Ehrhardt JC, et al. Usefulness of volumetry by magnetic resonance imaging in assessing response to radiation therapy in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;35:915–924
  15. Hricak H, Quivey JM, Campos Z, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: predictive value of clinical and magnetic resonance imaging assessment of prognostic factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;27:791–801
  16. Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CD, et al. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86:43–50
  17. Hricak H, Yu KK. Radiology in invasive cervical cancer. Review article. Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1101–1108
  18. Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F, et al. Early invasive cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathological results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 Intergroup Study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5687–5694
  19. Rosai J. Surgical pathology. 9th ed.. New York, USA: Mosby; 2004;pp. 2974-2975
  20. Lester SC. Manual of surgical pathology. 2nd ed.. Philadelphia, USA: Elsevier; 2006;pp. 425-428
  21. Burghardt E, Hofmann HMH, Ebner F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in cervical cancer: a basis for objective classification. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;33:61–67
  22. Ebner F, Tamussino K, Kressel HY. Magnetic resnonance imaging in cervical carcinoma: diagnosis, staging, and follow-up. Magn Reson Q. 1994;10:22–42
  23. Fischetti SG, Politi G, Lomeo E, et al. Carcinoma of the uterine cervical canal. Staging and biometric assessment with magnetic resonance. Radiol Med (Torino). 1994;88:445–452

PII: S0959-8049(08)00379-1

doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.04.023

European Journal of Cancer
Volume 44, Issue 11 , Pages 1524-1528 , July 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution