Mann W J, Baim R, Patsner B, Chalas E, Taylor A, Westermann C, Loesch M, Chumas J
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, State University of New York, School of Medicine, Stony Brook 11794-8091.
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1989;246(1):15-25. doi: 10.1007/BF00933073.
The management of gynecologic malignancies is exceedingly complex, requiring thoughtful coordination of surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Despite the fact that the natural history and clinical course of these cancers are generally well understood, the scarring caused by surgery and/or radiation, and the marked limitations of pelvic examination make clinical staging and evaluation of limited value and known inaccuracy in following women with ovarian, cervical, uterine, vulvar and vaginal cancers. Understandably, the development of computerized axial tomography (CT), and its ability to visualize the abdomen and pelvis, lead to rapid acceptance of CT scans in defining extent of cancer and following patient response to various therapeutic interventions (Chen et al. 1980; Feigen et al. 1987; Photopoulos et al. 1977). Authors have compared the accuracy of CT findings with physical examination, surgical findings, lymphography, conventional radiography or ultrasound (Clarke-Pearson et al. 1986; Vercamb et al. 1987; Amendola 1981; Kerr-Wilson et al. 1984). However, little has been written on the effect of CT scanning on patient management. If we define and accept the accuracy of CT scanning in detecting pelvic and abdominal disease, can we show a benefit in patient management? Or, does CT scanning provide us with expensive information, or misinformation, which fails to translate into better patient care. Do complex imaging modalities compliment thorough examination and experienced clinical judgement, or only duplicate findings and provide extraneous information? To answer these questions, eighty-one months experience in using CT scanning in managing patients with gynecologic malignancies was reviewed.
