medigraphic.com

2006, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Anales de Radiología México 2006; 5 (4)

Agreement of the stages of the cervicuterine cancer between the clinical exploration and tomographic findings

Motta RGA, Huerta SR, García CLI, Laguna SL, Loera CR

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 275-292
PDF size: 245.18 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Findings throu-gh TC may supplement to the clinical staging of the cervical-uterine-cancer (Ca CU) and is feasible given to the error margins that reach up to a 75% in late stages with this staging and that in comparison with staging through TC showing up errors in only 10% of said cases.
Material and methods: During the period of December, 2004 to April, 2006 a prospective, cross-sectional and comparative study was carried out, including 52 patients diagnosed with histopathologic Ca CU who went for the first time to the External Care Consultation of Radiotherapy and met the inclusion criteria. Concordance percentage and the χ2 was obtained to determine statistically significant differences among staging, for both, clinical (in accordance with the system of FIGO) as for TC (in accordance with FIGO and with TNM).
Results: TC confirmed the clinical staging in: 3/9 in stage I, 13/30 in stage II, 2/12 in stage III and only 1 in stage IV obtaining a percentage of concordance of 37%. When obtaining the number of tomographic cases confirmed clinically, it was found that the most important finding was that the clinic only confirmed 1/13 cases in stage IV for TC. Therefore, in the comparison of stage by stage-rate, only in the IV a statistically significant difference was found of the order: (Z = 2.972; p ‹ 0.05).
Conclusions: The use of TC as a complementary extension study to the system of clinical staging of FIGO from the stage IB1, is recommended due to the low concordance percentage obtained between both methods from early stages.


REFERENCES

  1. PAHO, Planificación de programas apropiados para la prevención del cáncer cervicouterino. 2002.

  2. Dirección de Prevención y Control del Cáncer en la Mujer. Avances del Programa de detección oportuna del cáncer cervical en México. 2005.

  3. INEGI/SSA. Reporte 2003.

  4. Kaur H, Silverman PM, Iyer RB, et al. Diagnostic, staging & surveillance of cervical carcinoma. AJR 2003; 180: 1621-32.

  5. Instituto Nacional de Cancerología. Manual de Oncología. 2a. Ed. Mc Graw Hill; 2003, p. 506-21.

  6. Schneider A, Hertel H. Surgical and radiographic staging in patients with cervical cancer. Curr Opinion Obstet Gynecol 2004; 16: 11-18.

  7. Badri El-Aawar. Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy and characteristics of operated cervical cancer patients in Lithuania 1998-2000. Medicina 2002; 38(6).

  8. Norma Oficial Mexicana para la Prevención, Tratamiento y Control del Cáncer del cuello del útero y mamario en la Atención Primaria (NOM-014-SSA2-1994), para la prevención, detección, diagnóstico, tratamiento, control y vigilancia epidemiológica del cáncer cérvico uterino.

  9. Ministerio de Salud. Guía Clínica Cáncer Cérvico Uterino 2. 1a Ed. Santiago: Minsal; 2005.

  10. Young RC. Gynecologic malignancies. In: Braunwald E, Hauser SL, Fauci AS, et al (Eds.). Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine 15th Ed. Vol. 1. Mc Graw Hill; 2001, p. 620-5.

  11. Sutton GP, Rogers RE, Hurd WW. Gynecology. En: Schwartz SI, Shires GT, Spencer FC, et al (eds.). Principles of Surgery. 7th Ed. Vol. 2. Mc Graw Hill; 2001: 1850.

  12. Cruz-Ramirez V, et al. Tesis: Valor de la TC en la etapificación de pacientes con CaCu; 1990.

  13. De la Huerta-Sánchez R. Valor de los estudios de extensión en la etapificación del cáncer cervicouterino. Departamento de Radioterapia, Hospital de Oncología del Centro Médico Nacional; 1990.

  14. Pannu HK, Corl FM, Fishman EK. Evaluation of cervical cancer: Spectrum of Disease. RadioGraphics 2001; 21: 1155-68.

  15. Follen M, Levenback CF, Iyer RB, et al. Imaging in cervical cancer. Cancer 2003; 98(9 Suppl.): 2028-38.

  16. Gamboa UM. Evaluación de resultados. Tratamiento del cáncer cervicouterino en el Hospital Central Militar. 2001-2003.

  17. Yu KK, Forstner R, Hricak H. Cervical carcinoma: Role of imaginig. Abdom Imaging 1997; 22: 208-15.

  18. Pannu HK, Fishman EK. Evaluation of cervical cancer by CT: current status. Cancer 2003; 98(9 Suppl.): 2039-43.

  19. Pannu HK. CT of the female pelvis. In: Fishman EK y Jeffrey RB, (Eds.). Multidetector CT. Principles, techniques & clinical applications. 1st ed. Lippincott: Williams & Wilkins; 2004, p. 377-80.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com