Cited 9 time in
Indications for endoscopy according to the revised FIGO staging for cervical cancer after MRI and CT scanning
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Jeong, B.K. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Huh, S.J. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Choi, D.H. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Park, W. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Oh, D. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Kim, T. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Lee, H.B. | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-12-27T02:39:16Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-12-27T02:39:16Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2005-0380 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2005-0399 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.gnu.ac.kr/handle/sw.gnu/23285 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | Objective: A recent revision of the FIGO staging system does not recommend the mandatory use of cystoscopy and sigmoidoscopy. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical utility of CT or MRI scans for ruling out bladder or rectal invasion and determine the indication for endoscopy in patients with cervical cancer. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 769 patients with cervical cancer, who underwent imaging and endoscopic work-up between January 1997 and December 2010. Using endoscopy as the standard reference for comparison, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of the imaging modality for bladder or rectal invasion. Results: The CT scan showed 68.2% and 85.7% for sensitivity and 96.4% and 98.9% for specificity in detecting bladder and rectal invasion, respectively. CT scan provided a low PPV (51.7%, 54.5%) and a high NPV (98.2%, 99.8%). MRI scan showed 88.0% and 75.0% for sensitivity and 93.1% and 98.9% for specificity in detecting bladder and rectal invasion, respectively. MRI scan provided a low PPV (35.6%, 42.9%) and a high NPV (99.4%, 99.7%). The accuracies of CT and MRI scans in identifying bladder invasion were 94.9% and 92.8%, respectively. The accuracies of CT and MRI in identifying rectal invasion were 98.7% and 98.6%, respectively. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that additional invasive endoscopy is not necessary for patients who present with no invasion on imaging work-up, and therefore, endoscopy should be considered a tool for confirming cases that are positive for invasion based on imaging work-up. ? 2012. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology. | - |
| dc.format.extent | 6 | - |
| dc.language | 영어 | - |
| dc.language.iso | ENG | - |
| dc.title | Indications for endoscopy according to the revised FIGO staging for cervical cancer after MRI and CT scanning | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.publisher.location | 대한민국 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.3802/jgo.2012.23.2.80 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-84859154628 | - |
| dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, v.23, no.2, pp 80 - 85 | - |
| dc.citation.title | Journal of Gynecologic Oncology | - |
| dc.citation.volume | 23 | - |
| dc.citation.number | 2 | - |
| dc.citation.startPage | 80 | - |
| dc.citation.endPage | 85 | - |
| dc.type.docType | Review | - |
| dc.identifier.kciid | ART001652211 | - |
| dc.description.isOpenAccess | Y | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scie | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
| dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | kci | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Computed tomography | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Cystoscopy | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Magnetic resonance imaging | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Sigmoidoscopy | - |
| dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Uterine cervical neoplasms | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
Gyeongsang National University Central Library, 501, Jinju-daero, Jinju-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, 52828, Republic of Korea+82-55-772-0532
COPYRIGHT 2022 GYEONGSANG NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.
