Invasive cervical carcinoma: Role of MR imaging in pretreatment work-up - Cost minimization and diagnostic efficacy analysis

Radiology

Volumn 198, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 403-409

  Hricak, Hedvig ^a   Powell, C Bethan ^b   Yu, Kyle K ^a   Washington, Eugene ^b   Subak, Leslee L ^b   Stern, Jeffrey L ^b   Cisternas, Miriam G ^a   Arenson, Ronald L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Economics, medical; Efficacy study; Uterine neoplasms, diagnosis; Uterine neoplasms, MR; Uterine neoplasms,CT

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER INVASION; CANCER STAGING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CYSTOSCOPY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT PLANNING; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERUS CANCER;

EID: 0030063959     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.198.2.8596840     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Manual for staging of cancer. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa. Lippincott, 1988; 151-153.
2. Tumors of the cervix. In: Morrow CP, Curtin JP, Townsend DE, eds. Synopsis of gynecologic oncology. 4th ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone, 1993; 111-152.
3. Hoskins WJ, Perez C, Young RC. Gynecologic tumors. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: principles & practice of oncology. Vol 1, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, 1989; 1114-1119.
4. Lagasse LD, Creasman WT, Shingleton HM, Blessing JA. Results and complications of operative staging in cervical cancer: experience of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol 1980; 9:90-98.
5. Delgado G, Bundy B, Zaino R, et al. Prospective surgical-pathological study of disease-free interval in patients with stage Ib squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol 1990; 38:352-357.
6. Van Nagell JR, Roddick JW Jr, Lowin DM. The staging of cervical cancer. inevitable discrepancies between clinical staging and pathologic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1971, 110:973-977.
7. Dargent D, Frobert JL, Beau G. V factor (tumor volume) and T factor (FIGO classification) in the assessment of cervix cancer prognosis: the risk of lymph node spread. Gynecol Oncol 1985; 22:15-22.
8. Chung CK, Nahhas WA, Zaino R, Stryker JA, Mortel R. Histologic grade and lymph node metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 1981; 12:348-354.
9. Zander J, Baltzer J, Lohe KJ, Ober KG, Kaufmann C. Carcinoma of the cervix: an attempt to individualize treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 139.752-759.
10. Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, Chang YCF, Winkler ML, Stern JL. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 1988; 166:623-631.
11. Kim SH, Choi BI, Han JK, et al. Preoperative staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MRI in 99 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993; 17.633-640.
12. Russell AH, Anderson M, Walter J, Kinney W, Smith L, Scudder S. The integration of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in treatment planning for gynecologic cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1992; 35:55-72.
13. Janus CL, Mendelson DS, Moore S, Gendal E, Dottiro P, Brodman M. Staging of cervical carcinoma: accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Clin Imaging 1989; 13:114-116.
14. Kim SH, Choi BL, Lee HP, et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR findings. Radiology 1990; 175:45-51.
15. Cobby M, Browning J, Jones A, Whipp E, Goddard P. Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and endosonography in the staging of carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Radiol 1990, 63.673-679.
16. Subak L, Hricak H, Powell CB, Azizi L, Stern J. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86.43-50.
17. Rosner BA. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 4th ed. Boston, Mass: PWS-Kent, 1994; 263-275.
18. Medicare special notice, No. 93F, 1993-94. Washington, DC: Health Care Financing Administration.
19. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Sackett DL. User's guide to the medical literature. JAMA 1994; 271.703-707.
20. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders, 1980.
21. Shingleton HM, Fowler WC, Koch GG. Pretreatment evaluation in cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1971; 110:385-389.
22. Lindell LK, Anderson B. Routine pretreatment evaluation of patients with gynecologic cancer Obstet Gynecol 1987, 69: 242-246.
23. Van Nagell JR, Sprague AD, Roddick JW The effect of intravenous pyelography and cystoscopy on the staging of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1975; 3:87-91.
24. Schmitz MJ, Nahhas WA, Clark MA, Brown M. Stage IB carcinoma of the cervix: are all staging tests and procedures necessary? Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1994; 15:199-204.
25. Frohlich EP, Bex P, Nissenbaum MM, Epstein BM, Sonnendecker EW. Comparison between renal ultrasonography and excretory urography in cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1991; 34:49-54.
26. Goldman SM, Fishman EK, Rosenshein NB, Gatewood OM, Siegelman SS. Excretory urography and computed tomography in the initial evaluation of patients with cervical cancer: are both examinations necessary? AJR 1984; 143:991-996.
27. Kikinis R, von Schulthess GK, Jager P, et al. Normal and hydronephrotic kidney evaluation of renal function with contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 165: 837-842.
28. Burghardt E, Webb MJ, Monaghan JM, Kindermann G. Surgical gynecologic oncology. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers, 1993.
29. Burghardt E, Pikel H. Local spread and lymph node involvement in cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1978, 52:138-145.
30. Ho CM, Chien TY, Jeng CM, Tsang YM, Shih BY, Chang SC Staging of cervical cancer: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and pelvic examination under anesthesia J Formos Med Assn 1992; 91:982-990
31. Averette HE, Ford JH Jr, Dudan RC, Girtanner RE, Hoskins WJ, Lutz MH Staging of cervical cancer Clin Obstet Gynecol 1975; 18:215-232.
32. Matsuyama T, Inoue I, Tsukamoto N, et al Stage Ib, IIa, and IIb cervix cancer: postsurgical staging and prognosis. Cancer 1984, 54:3072-3077.
33. Newton WA, Roberts WS, Marsden DE, Cavanagh D. Value of computerized axial tomography in cervical cancer. Oncology 1987; 44:124-127.
34. Walsh JW, Goplerud DR. Prospective comparison between clinical and CT staging in primary cervical carcinoma. AJR 1981; 137:997-1003.
35. Vas W, Wolverson M, Frccl J, Salimi Z, Sundaram M. Computed tomography in the pretreatment assessment of carcinoma of the cervix. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1985; 9:359-368.
36. Sironi S, Delobilli F, Scarfone G, et al Carcinoma of the cervix: value of plain and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging in assessing degree of invasiveness Radiology 1993, 188:797-801.
37. Lien HH, Blomlie V, Iversen T, Trope C, Sundfor K, Abeler VM. Clinical stage I carcinoma of the cervix: value of MR imaging in determining invasion into the parametrium. Acta Radiol 1993; 34:130-132.
38. Greco A, Leung AWL, Dische S, Mcindoe GAJ, Anderson MC. Staging of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: MRI-surgical correlation. Clin Radiol 1989; 40:401-405.
39. Togashi K, Nishimura K, Sagoh T, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix: staging with MR imaging. Radiology 1989; 171:245-251.
40. Piver MS, Chung WS. Prognostic significance of cervical lesion size and pelvic node metastases in cervical carcinoma Obstet Gynecol 1975; 46:507-510.
41. Gauthier P, Gore I, Shingleton HM, Soong SJ, Orr JW, Hatch KD. Identification of histopathologic risk groups in stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66:569-574.
42. Van Nagell JR, Donaldson ES, Parker JC, Van Dyke AH, Wood EG. The prognostic significance of cell type and lesion size in patients with cervical cancer treated by radical surgery. Gynecol Oncol 1977; 5:142-151.
43. White CD, Morley GW, Kumar NB. The prognostic significance of tumor emboli in lymphatic or vascular spaces of the cervical stroma in stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 149:342-349.
44. Walsh JW, Amendola MA, Konerding KF, Tisnado J, Harza TA. Computed tomographic detection of pelvic and inguinal lymph-node metastases from primary and recurrent pelvic malignant disease. Radiology 1980; 137:157-166.
45. Villasanta U, Whitley NO, Haney PH, Brenner D. Computed tomography in invasive carcinoma of the cervix: an appraisal Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62:218-224.
46. Feigen M, Crocker EF, Read J, Crandon AJ. The value of lymphoscintigraphy, lymphangiography and computer tomography scanning in the preoperative assessment of lymph nodes involved by pelvic malignant conditions. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1987; 165: 107-110.
47. Matsukuma K, Tsukamoto N, Matsuyama T, Ono M, Nakano H. Preoperative CT study of lymph nodes in cervical cancer: its correlation with histological findings. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 33:168-171.
48. Camilien L, Gordon D, Fruchter RG, Maiman M, Boyce JG. Predictive value of computerized tomography in the presurgical evaluation of primary carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 1988, 30:209-215.
49. Brenner DE, Whitley NO, Prempree T, Villasanta U. An evaluation of the computed tomographic scanner for the staging of carcinoma of the cervix. Cancer 1982; 50:2323-2328.
50. Kim SH, Kim SC, Choi BI, Han MC. Uterine cervical carcinoma: evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastasis with MR imaging. Radiology 1994; 190:807-811.
51. Popovich MJ, Hricak H, Sugimura K, Stern JL. The role of MR imaging in determining surgical eligibility for pelvic exenteration. AJR 1993; 160:525-531.
52. Parker R. The "cost effectiveness" of radiology and radiologist. Radiology 1993; 189: 363-369.
53. Lohe K, Braunig G, Zander J. Geburtsh. Frauenheilk 1969; 12:1061.
54. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, eds. Designing clinical research. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins, 1988; 90-92.
55. Semelka RC, Hricak H, Tomei E, Floth A, Stoller M. Obstructive nephropathy: evaluation with dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1990, 175: 797-803.