Is cytologic screening an effective surveillance method for detection of vaginal recurrence of uterine cancer?

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 107, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 71-76

  Cooper, Amy L ^b   Dornfeld Finke, Jean M ^b   Banks, Helen W ^b   Davey, Diane D ^b   Modesitt, Susan C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECURRENCE RISK; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; UTERUS CANCER; AGE DISTRIBUTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CYTODIAGNOSIS; HYSTERECTOMY; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; INCIDENCE; MASS SCREENING; METASTASIS; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MONITORING; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PROBABILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; SURVIVAL RATE; TUMOR RECURRENCE; VAGINA SMEAR; VAGINA TUMOR;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; INCIDENCE; LOGISTIC MODELS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MONITORING, PHYSIOLOGIC; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROBABILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURVIVAL RATE; UTERINE NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 33644865508     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000194206.38105.c8     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, Samuels A, Tiwari RC, Ghafoor A, et al. Cancer statistics, 2005 [published erratum appears in CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:259]. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:10-30.
2. Barnhill D, O'Connor D, Farley J, Teneriello M, Armstrong D, Park R. Clinical surveillance of gynecologic cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 1992;46:275-80.
3. Agboola OO, Grunfeld E, Coyle D, Perry GA. Costs and benefits of routine follow-up after curative treatment for endometrial cancer [published erratum appears in CMAJ 1998;158: 26]. CMAJ 1997;157:879-86.
4. Morice P, Levy-Piedbois C, Ajaj S, Pautier P, Haie-Meder C, Lhomme C, et al. Value and cost evaluation of routine follow-up for patients with clinical stage I/II endometrial cancer. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:985-90.
5. Berchuck A, Anspach C, Evans AC, Soper JT, Rodriguez GC, Dodge R, et al. Postsurgical surveillance of patients with FIGO stage I/II endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1995;59:20-4.
6. Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA 2002;287:2382-90.
7. Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman RJ, Creasman WT, Heller P, Homesley HD, et al. Relationship between surgical-pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 1991;40:55-65.
8. Rosenberg P, Blom R, Hogberg T, Simonsen E. Death rate and recurrence pattern among 841 clinical stage I endometrial cancer patients with special reference to uterine papillary serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1993;51:311-5.
9. Reddoch JM, Burke TW, Morris M, Tornos C, Levenback C, Gershenson DM. Surveillance for recurrent endometrial carcinoma: development of a follow-up scheme. Gynecol Oncol 1995;59:221-5.
10. Shumsky AG, Stuart GC, Brasher PM, Nation JG, Robertson DI, Sangkarat S. An evaluation of routine follow-up of patients treated for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1994;55:229-33.