4.3 Article

Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines 2011 for the treatment of uterine cervical cancer

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 240-248

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-015-0806-7

Keywords

Uterine cervical cancer; Clinical practice guidelines; Surgery; Chemotherapy; Irradiation; Recurrence

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [H24-Clinical Cancer Research-001]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26462538] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The second edition of the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines for the treatment of uterine cervical cancer was published in 2011. The guidelines comprise eight chapters and five algorithms. They were prepared by consensus among the members of the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology Guidelines Formulation Committee and Evaluation Committee and are based on a careful review of the evidence obtained from the literature, health insurance system, and actual clinical settings in Japan. The highlights of the 2011 revision are (1) the recommended grades have been changed to five stages-A, B, C1, C2, and D; (2) the revisions are consistent with the new International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system; (3) the roles are shared between the 'Japanese classification of cervical cancer' and the new guidelines; (4) clinical questions related to adenocarcinoma have been revised; and (5) a clinical question regarding cervical cancer in pregnant patients has been added. Each chapter includes a clinical question, recommendations, background, objectives, explanations, and references. Each recommendation is accompanied by a classification of recommendation categories. The objective of these guidelines is to update the standard treatment strategies for cervical cancer, thus eliminating unnecessary and insufficient treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available