433 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31188324)
1. Prognostic Performance of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Cervical Cancer Staging Guidelines.
Wright JD; Matsuo K; Huang Y; Tergas AI; Hou JY; Khoury-Collado F; St Clair CM; Ananth CV; Neugut AI; Hershman DL
Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Jul; 134(1):49-57. PubMed ID: 31188324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Is the revised 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer more prognostic than the 2009 FIGO staging system for women previously staged as IB disease?
Ayhan A; Aslan K; Bulut AN; Akilli H; Öz M; Haberal A; Meydanli MM
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2019 Sep; 240():209-214. PubMed ID: 31325847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system.
Matsuo K; Machida H; Mandelbaum RS; Konishi I; Mikami M
Gynecol Oncol; 2019 Jan; 152(1):87-93. PubMed ID: 30389105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinicopathological risk factors in the light of the revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for early cervical cancer with staging IB: A single center retrospective study.
Zeng J; Qu P; Hu Y; Sun P; Qi J; Zhao G; Gao Y
Medicine (Baltimore); 2020 Apr; 99(16):e19714. PubMed ID: 32311956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Re-classification of uterine cervical cancer cases treated with radical hysterectomy based on the 2018 FIGO staging system.
Osaku D; Komatsu H; Okawa M; Iida Y; Sato S; Oishi T; Harada T
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Nov; 60(6):1054-1058. PubMed ID: 34794737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. FIGO Classification 2018: Validation Study in Patients With Locally Advanced Cervix Cancer Treated With Chemoradiation.
Raut A; Chopra S; Mittal P; Patil G; Mahantshetty U; Gurram L; Swamidas J; Ghosh J; Gulia S; Popat P; Deodhar K; Maheshwari A; Gupta S
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2020 Dec; 108(5):1248-1256. PubMed ID: 32681859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The variable impact of positive lymph nodes in cervical cancer: Implications of the new FIGO staging system.
McComas KN; Torgeson AM; Ager BJ; Hellekson C; Burt LM; Maurer KA; Werner TL; Gaffney DK
Gynecol Oncol; 2020 Jan; 156(1):85-92. PubMed ID: 31744640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Current FIGO Staging for Carcinoma of the Cervix Uteri and Treatment of Particular Stages.
Sehnal B; Kmoníčková E; Sláma J; Tomancová V; Zikán M
Klin Onkol; 2019; 32(3):224-231. PubMed ID: 31216857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Significance of tumor size and number of positive nodes in patients with FIGO 2018 stage IIIC1 cervical cancer.
Maeda M; Mabuchi S; Sakata M; Deguchi S; Kakubari R; Matsuzaki S; Hisa T; Kamiura S
Jpn J Clin Oncol; 2024 Feb; 54(2):146-152. PubMed ID: 37935434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The 5-year overall survival of cervical cancer in stage IIIC-r was little different to stage I and II: a retrospective analysis from a single center.
Yang E; Huang S; Ran X; Huang Y; Li Z
BMC Cancer; 2021 Feb; 21(1):203. PubMed ID: 33639874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. FIGO 2018 stage IB endocervical adenocarcinomas: an international study of outcomes informed by prognostic biomarkers.
Stolnicu S; Boros M; Hoang L; Almadani N; de Brot L; Baiocchi G; Bonvolim G; Parra-Herran C; Lerias S; Felix A; Roma A; Pesci A; Oliva E; Park K; Soslow RA; Abu-Rustum NR
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2021 Feb; 31(2):177-184. PubMed ID: 33177150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A reappraisal of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for cervical cancer. A study of patterns of care.
Lanciano RM; Won M; Hanks GE
Cancer; 1992 Jan; 69(2):482-7. PubMed ID: 1728378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Magnetic resonance imaging-based validation of the 2018 FIGO staging system in patients treated with definitive radiotherapy for locally advanced cervix cancer.
Kim J; Cho Y; Kim N; Chung SY; Kim JW; Lee IJ; Kim YB
Gynecol Oncol; 2021 Mar; 160(3):735-741. PubMed ID: 33358037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of the efficacy of prophylactic extended field irradiation in the concomitant chemoradiotherapy treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer, stage IIIB in the 2018 FIGO classification.
Meng Q; Liu X; Wang W; Hou X; Lian X; Sun S; Yan J; Liu Z; Miao Z; Hu K; Zhang F
Radiat Oncol; 2019 Dec; 14(1):228. PubMed ID: 31842919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. FIGO stage, histology, histologic grade, age and race as prognostic factors in determining survival for cancers of the female gynecological system: an analysis of 1973-87 SEER cases of cancers of the endometrium, cervix, ovary, vulva, and vagina.
Kosary CL
Semin Surg Oncol; 1994; 10(1):31-46. PubMed ID: 8115784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparing survival outcomes for cervical cancer based on the 2014 and 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging systems.
Shin W; Ham TY; Park YR; Lim MC; Won YJ
Sci Rep; 2021 Mar; 11(1):6988. PubMed ID: 33772044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The prognostic value of the presence of pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients; the influence of the new FIGO classification (stage IIIC).
van Kol KGG; Ebisch RMF; van der Aa M; Wenzel HB; Piek JMJ; Bekkers RLM
Gynecol Oncol; 2023 Apr; 171():9-14. PubMed ID: 36804623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interobserver variability of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging in cervical cancer.
Tummers P; Gerestein K; Mens JW; Verstraelen H; van Doorn H
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2013 Jun; 23(5):890-4. PubMed ID: 23640293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Impact of tumor histology on detection of pelvic and para-aortic nodal metastasis with
Lin AJ; Wright JD; Dehdashti F; Siegel BA; Markovina S; Schwarz J; Thaker PH; Mutch DG; Powell MA; Grigsby PW
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2019 Nov; 29(9):1351-1354. PubMed ID: 31473660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Stage Migration in Cervical Cancer Using the FIGO 2018 Staging System: A Retrospective Survival Analysis Using a Single-Institution Patient Cohort.
Vengaloor Thomas T; Reddy KK; Gandhi S; Nittala MR; Abraham A; Robinson W; Ridgway M; Packianathan S; Vijayakumar S
Cureus; 2021 Nov; 13(11):e19289. PubMed ID: 34877225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
