2020
DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001257
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Recently the revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for cervical cancer was published. In this most recent classification, imaging modalities and pathologic information have been added as tools to determine the final stage of the disease. Although there are many merits to this new staging for cervical cancer, including more detailed categorization of early-stage disease as well as information on nodal distribution, the classification falls short in clarifying a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
33
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Women with microscopic invasion of the parametrium on final histology are allocated to stage IIB, while nodal metastases identified in the parametrium presumably allocate the women to stage IIIC1. It is unknown whether the women with one nodal MAC or MIC in the parametrium and no positive pelvic nodes share the same survival as women with positive pelvic nodes or should be considered stage IIB [24]. Five such women in our study population had tumor characteristics as FIGO-2018 IB1 and IB2 but were allocated to stage IIIC1 due to one parametrial lymph node metastasis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Women with microscopic invasion of the parametrium on final histology are allocated to stage IIB, while nodal metastases identified in the parametrium presumably allocate the women to stage IIIC1. It is unknown whether the women with one nodal MAC or MIC in the parametrium and no positive pelvic nodes share the same survival as women with positive pelvic nodes or should be considered stage IIB [24]. Five such women in our study population had tumor characteristics as FIGO-2018 IB1 and IB2 but were allocated to stage IIIC1 due to one parametrial lymph node metastasis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This bias selection might explain this finding, as suggested by other authors [ 22 , 25 , 56 ]. Moreover, the measurement of cervical tumor size remains a hot topic [ 57 ]. Preoperatively, tumor size may be assessed by clinical palpation, during colposcopic examination, or by imaging such as MRI or ultrasound.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each modality has inherent limitations, such as observer subjectivity, tumor topography (exophytic and/or endocervical) or tumor shrinkage and therefore variable efficiency [ 58 , 59 , 60 ]. In addition, tumor size described at pathologic examination may differ whether it refers to “diameter” or “dimension”, and in which axis the measurement is performed [ 57 ]. This is particularly important, since discordance between clinical and pathologic tumor size may result in 12% of upstaging rate according to Vetter et al [ 56 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In cases of cervical cancer, Salvo et al 4 emphasized the inadequacy of physical examination in determining tumor size and considered tumor volume for this purpose due to the three‐dimensional nature of cervical tumors. If the volume of the cervical tumor is an important factor for disease staging and therapy planning, clinicians should be closely familiar with normal cervical dimensions and CV.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%