4.5 Article

Practice guidelines for management of uterine corpus cancer in Korea: a Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Consensus Statement

期刊

JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

KOREAN SOC GYNECOLOGY ONCOLOGY & COLPOSCOPY
DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e12

关键词

Uterine Corpus Neoplasms; Practice Guideline; Consensus; Surgery; Chemotherapy; Irradiation

资金

  1. Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) central funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical practice guidelines for gynecologic cancers have been developed by many organizations. Although these guidelines have much in common in terms of the practice of standard of care for uterine corpus cancer, practice guidelines that reflect the characteristics of patients and healthcare and insurance systems are needed for each country. The Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) published the first edition of practice guidelines for gynecologic cancer treatment in late 2006; the second edition was released in July 2010 as an evidence-based recommendation. The Guidelines Revision Committee was established in 2015 and decided to produce the third edition of the guidelines as an advanced form based on evidence-based medicine, considering up-to-date clinical trials and abundant qualified Korean data. These guidelines cover screening, surgery, adjuvant treatment, and advanced and recurrent disease with respect to endometrial carcinoma and uterine sarcoma. The committee members and many gynecologic oncologists derived key questions from the discussion, and a number of relevant scientific literatures were reviewed in advance. Recommendations for each specific question were developed by the consensus conference, and they are summarized here, together with other details. The objective of these practice guidelines is to establish standard policies on issues in clinical areas related to the management of uterine corpus cancer based on the findings in published papers to date and the consensus of experts as a KSGO Consensus Statement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据