The value of MR imaging when the site of uterine cancer origin is uncertain

Radiology

Volumn 258, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 785-792

  Vargas, Hebert Alberto ^a   Akin, Oguz ^a   Zheng, Junting ^a   Moskowitz, Chaya ^a   Soslow, Robert ^a   Abu Rustum, Nadeem ^a   Barakat, Richard R ^a   Hricak, Hedvig ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER INVASION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL SYSTEM; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MYOMETRIUM; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGICAL ANATOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERUS CANCER; VAGINA;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 79952306270     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101147     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:277-300.
2. Hricak H. Diagnostic imaging: gynecology. Salt Lake City, Utah: Amirsys, 2007.
3. Simel DL, Rennie D, Bossuyt PM. The STARD statement for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: application to the history and physical examination. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23(6):768-774.
4. Simel DL, Feussner JR, DeLong ER, Matchar DB. Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results. Med Decis Making 1987;7(2):107-114. (Pubitemid 17059048)
5. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 1973;33(3):613-619.
6. Hardesty LA, Sumkin JH, Nath ME, et al. Use of preoperative MR imaging in the management of endometrial carcinoma: cost analysis. Radiology 2000;215(1):45-49. (Pubitemid 30190509)
7. Hricak H, Powell CB, Yu KK, et al. Invasive cervical carcinoma: role of MR imaging in pretreatment work-up - cost minimization and diagnostic efficacy analysis. Radiology 1996;198(2):403-409. (Pubitemid 26036845)
8. Silverberg SG, Ioffe OB. Pathology of cervical cancer. Cancer J 2003;9(5):335-347. (Pubitemid 44403487)
9. Soslow RA, Oliva E. Uterine cancer: pathology. In: Muggia F, Oliva E, eds. Uterine cancer: screening, diagnosis, and treatment. New York, NY: Humana, 2009; 51-86.
10. McCluggage WG, Sumathi VP, McBride HA, Patterson A. A panel of immunohistochemical stains, including carcinoembryonic antigen, vimentin, and estrogen receptor, aids the distinction between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002;21(1):11-15. (Pubitemid 34008347)
11. Castrillon DH, Lee KR, Nucci MR. Distinction between endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinoma: an immunohistochemical study. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002;21(1):4-10. (Pubitemid 34008346)
12. Kamoi S, AlJuboury MI, Akin MR, Silverberg SG. Immunohistochemical staining in the distinction between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas: another viewpoint. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002;21(3):217-223. (Pubitemid 34680337)
13. Liao CL, Lee MY, Tyan YS, et al. Progesterone receptor does not improve the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker panel, consisting of estrogen receptor, vimentin and carcinoembryonic antigen in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study. J Transl Med 2009;7:37.
14. McCluggage WGF, Jenkins DF. p16 immunoreactivity may assist in the distinction between endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2003;22(3):231-235.
15. Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, et al. Localregional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology 2004;231(2):372-378. (Pubitemid 38552891)
16. Hricak H, Stern JL, Fisher MR, Shapeero LG, Winkler ML, Lacey CG. Endometrial carcinoma staging by MR imaging. Radiology 1987;162(2):297-305. (Pubitemid 17015626)
17. Hricak H, Rubinstein LV, Gherman GM, Karstaedt N. MR imaging evaluation of endometrial carcinoma: results of an NCI cooperative study. Radiology 1991;179(3):829-832.
18. Barwick TD, Rockall AG, Barton DP, Sohaib SA. Imaging of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Clin Radiol 2006;61(7):545-555. (Pubitemid 43899341)
19. Joja I, Asakawa M, Asakawa T, et al. Endometrial carcinoma: dynamic MRI with turbo-FLASH technique. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996; 20(6):878-887. (Pubitemid 26392549)
20. Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, Azizi L, Stern JL. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86(1):43-50.
21. Hori M, Kim T, Murakami T, et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: preoperative staging with 3.0-T MR imaging - comparison with 1.5-T MR imaging. Radiology 2009;251(1):96-104.
22. Hricak H, Lacey CG, Sandles LG, Chang YC, Winkler ML, Stern JL. Invasive cervical carcinoma: comparison of MR imaging and surgical findings. Radiology 1988;166(3):623-631. (Pubitemid 18058914)
23. Kim SH, Choi BI, Lee HP, et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR findings. Radiology 1990;175(1):45-51.
24. Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(36):9329-9337.
25. Creasman W. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105(2):109.
26. Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105(2):107-108.