Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University, College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
J Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Jun;19(2):108-12. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2008.19.2.108. Epub 2008 Jun 20.
The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of pelvic examination versus imaging modality such as computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the measurement of the tumor size of invasive cervical carcinoma based on pathologic findings.
Patients with stage Ib-II cervical cancer who underwent primary surgical treatment between January 2003 and December 2005 were evaluated retrospectively. One hundred three consecutive patients aged 24 to 81 years (mean age, 50.6 years), who had not received any treatment previously were included in this study. Accuracy of preoperative CT or MRI versus pelvic examination in the measurement of tumor size was compared based on pathologic findings. All patients were examined and staged clinically by the gynecologic oncologist. Surgery was performed within 2 weeks after imaging studies. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
The largest diameter of the tumor measured by pathologic findings was 2.76+/-1.76 cm. Based on pathologic findings, accuracy was estimated by the degree of agreement with a difference of <0.5 or 1.0 cm between the measurements of tumor size obtained by pelvic examination and imaging modality. Pelvic examination and imaging modality had an accuracy of 46.6% and 39.8%, respectively, with a difference of <0.5 cm, and an accuracy of 72.8% and 55.3%, respectively, with a difference of <1.0 cm. Correlation with pathologic findings was higher for pelvic examination (r(s)=0.680) than for imaging modality (r(s)=0.410). In determining the size of tumor mass differentiating >4.0 cm from </=4.0 cm, imaging modality showed higher accuracy than pelvic examination.
For the patients with stage Ib to II cervical cancer, pelvic examination is superior to imaging modality with regard to evaluation of the tumor size. However, imaging modality may be accurate for evaluating bulky tumors of cervical cancer.
本研究旨在比较盆腔检查与影像学检查(如 CT 或 MRI)在基于病理发现的宫颈癌肿瘤大小测量方面的准确性。
回顾性评估 2003 年 1 月至 2005 年 12 月期间接受根治性手术治疗的 Ib 期至 II 期宫颈癌患者。共纳入 103 例年龄 24 至 81 岁(平均年龄 50.6 岁)、未经任何治疗的连续患者。基于病理发现,比较术前 CT 或 MRI 与盆腔检查在肿瘤大小测量方面的准确性。所有患者均由妇科肿瘤学家进行检查和临床分期。影像学研究后 2 周内进行手术。使用描述性统计分析数据。
根据病理发现,肿瘤的最大直径为 2.76+/-1.76cm。根据病理发现,将盆腔检查和影像学测量的肿瘤大小之间的差异<0.5cm 或 1.0cm 的程度估计为准确性。盆腔检查和影像学检查的准确性分别为 46.6%和 39.8%,差异<0.5cm,准确性分别为 72.8%和 55.3%,差异<1.0cm。与病理发现的相关性,盆腔检查(r(s)=0.680)高于影像学检查(r(s)=0.410)。在区分肿瘤大小>4.0cm 与<=4.0cm 方面,影像学检查比盆腔检查具有更高的准确性。
对于 Ib 期至 II 期宫颈癌患者,盆腔检查在评估肿瘤大小时优于影像学检查。然而,影像学检查可能对评估宫颈癌的大肿块更准确。