Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of tumor size following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer

I. Pinkavova, D. Fischerova, M. Zikan, A. Burgetova, J. Slama, J. Svarovsky, P. Dundr, L. Dusek, D. Cibula,

. 2013 ; 42 (6) : 705-712.

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Grant support
NT13070 MZ0 CEP Register

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in the evaluation of tumor size and in the detection of residual tumor following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective study involving 42 women with locally advanced histologically confirmed cervical cancer referred for NACT. Clinical examination, TRUS and MRI were performed before and after NACT. The tumor volume was calculated using three standardized diameters (anteroposterior, laterolateral and craniocaudal) that were measured using both TRUS and MRI. Thereafter patients underwent surgical treatment and the same tumor measurements were taken by a pathologist using a fixed surgical specimen. Tumor volumes were calculated from tumor dimensions using the ellipsoid formula, and data obtained from both imaging methods were compared with pathological results as the gold standard. RESULTS: Twelve cases were excluded from the study owing to disease progression (these patients were referred for primary radiotherapy) or inability to perform MRI, leaving data from 30 patients for the final analysis. On average, tumor volume decreased after NACT by 84.6 and 87.1% as measured by MRI and TRUS, respectively. The agreement between measurements obtained by MRI and histology did not reach significance (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.344 (95% CI, -0.013 to 0.610), P = 0.059), while agreement between TRUS and histology was statistically significant (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.795 (95% CI, 0.569-0.902), P < 0.001). The accuracy of residual tumor detection (for non-microscopic tumors > 5 mm3 in volume) reached 77% for both MRI and TRUS. The sensitivity of TRUS was, however, lower than that of MRI (83 vs. 96%). The positive predictive values were similar for the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: TRUS should be considered as an accurate diagnostic method in the evaluation of tumor volume after NACT in patients with cervical cancer and may constitute a reliable alternative imaging method to MRI.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc14074757
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20181109142049.0
007      
ta
008      
141006s2013 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1002/uog.12455 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)23495185
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Pinkavová, Ivana, $u Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. $d 1976- $7 xx0103207
245    10
$a Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of tumor size following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer / $c I. Pinkavova, D. Fischerova, M. Zikan, A. Burgetova, J. Slama, J. Svarovsky, P. Dundr, L. Dusek, D. Cibula,
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in the evaluation of tumor size and in the detection of residual tumor following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective study involving 42 women with locally advanced histologically confirmed cervical cancer referred for NACT. Clinical examination, TRUS and MRI were performed before and after NACT. The tumor volume was calculated using three standardized diameters (anteroposterior, laterolateral and craniocaudal) that were measured using both TRUS and MRI. Thereafter patients underwent surgical treatment and the same tumor measurements were taken by a pathologist using a fixed surgical specimen. Tumor volumes were calculated from tumor dimensions using the ellipsoid formula, and data obtained from both imaging methods were compared with pathological results as the gold standard. RESULTS: Twelve cases were excluded from the study owing to disease progression (these patients were referred for primary radiotherapy) or inability to perform MRI, leaving data from 30 patients for the final analysis. On average, tumor volume decreased after NACT by 84.6 and 87.1% as measured by MRI and TRUS, respectively. The agreement between measurements obtained by MRI and histology did not reach significance (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.344 (95% CI, -0.013 to 0.610), P = 0.059), while agreement between TRUS and histology was statistically significant (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.795 (95% CI, 0.569-0.902), P < 0.001). The accuracy of residual tumor detection (for non-microscopic tumors > 5 mm3 in volume) reached 77% for both MRI and TRUS. The sensitivity of TRUS was, however, lower than that of MRI (83 vs. 96%). The positive predictive values were similar for the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: TRUS should be considered as an accurate diagnostic method in the evaluation of tumor volume after NACT in patients with cervical cancer and may constitute a reliable alternative imaging method to MRI.
650    _2
$a adenokarcinom $x farmakoterapie $x patologie $x ultrasonografie $7 D000230
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a protokoly protinádorové kombinované chemoterapie $x terapeutické užití $7 D000971
650    _2
$a spinocelulární karcinom $x farmakoterapie $x patologie $x ultrasonografie $7 D002294
650    _2
$a cisplatina $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D002945
650    _2
$a kohortové studie $7 D015331
650    _2
$a endosonografie $x metody $7 D019160
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a ifosfamid $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D007069
650    _2
$a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $7 D008279
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a neoadjuvantní terapie $7 D020360
650    _2
$a paclitaxel $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D017239
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    12
$a tumor burden $7 D047368
650    _2
$a nádory děložního čípku $x farmakoterapie $x patologie $x ultrasonografie $7 D002583
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Fischerová, Daniela $7 xx0074804
700    1_
$a Zikán, Michal, $d 1976- $7 xx0096708
700    1_
$a Burgetová, Andrea $7 xx0163957
700    1_
$a Sláma, Jiří $7 xx0105772
700    1_
$a Svárovský, Jiří $7 xx0081902
700    1_
$a Dundr, Pavel, $d 1971- $7 xx0080436
700    1_
$a Dušek, Ladislav, $d 1967- $7 mzk2003181727
700    1_
$a Cibula, David, $d 1968- $7 jo20000074072
773    0_
$w MED00010717 $t Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology $x 1469-0705 $g Roč. 42, č. 6 (2013), s. 705-712
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23495185 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20141006 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20181109142129 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1042640 $s 873669
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2013 $b 42 $c 6 $d 705-712 $i 1469-0705 $m Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology $n Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol $x MED00010717
GRA    __
$a NT13070 $p MZ0
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20141006

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...