4.6 Article

Preoperative assessment of myometrial and cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma by transvaginal ultrasound

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 122, 期 3, 页码 600-603

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.05.041

关键词

Endometrial cancer; Trasvaginal ultrasound; Myometrial invasion; Cervical invasion; Grade

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) in preoperative assessment of the depth of myometrial infiltration and the presence of cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Methods. 298 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of endometrial cancer were evaluated by TVS within 3 clays of surgical intervention. The depth of myometrial invasion was classified into two groups: no or <50% invasion and >= 50% invasion. Invasion of cervix was diagnosed when the neoplastic tissue distended the cervix and showed ill-defined borders with the cervical stroma. Results. The sensitivity, specifity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and overall diagnostic accuracy of TVS in evaluation of the depth of myometrial infiltration were 68.4%, 82%, 65.1%, 84.1%, and 77.5%, respectively. While the sensitivity and PPV were significantly higher among grade 3 tumors, the specifity, NPV and accuracy were significantly higher among grade I tumors. The sensitivity. specifity. PPV. NPV, and overall diagnostic accuracy of TVS in assessment of the presence or absence of neoplastic tissue in cervix were 76.5%, 99.3%, 86.7%, 98.2% and 98%, respectively. While the sensitivity and PPV were significantly higher among grade I tumors, the NPV and accuracy were significantly lower among grade 3 tumors. Conclusion. TVS can be considered as a feasible, economical and simple imaging modality with a high diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of cervical involvement. I however, it is not a reliable method in estimating the depth of myometrial infiltration. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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