238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31354353)
1. Prognostic value of the 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer patients with surgical risk factors.
Yan DD; Tang Q; Chen JH; Tu YQ; Lv XJ
Cancer Manag Res; 2019; 11():5473-5480. PubMed ID: 31354353
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for 2018 FIGO stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 cervical cancer: a large multicenter study.
Chen X; Duan H; Liu P; Lin L; Ni Y; Li D; Dai E; Zhan X; Li P; Huo Z; Bin X; Lang J; Chen C
Ann Transl Med; 2022 Jan; 10(2):121. PubMed ID: 35282114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Locoregional spread and survival of stage IIA1 versus stage IIA2 cervical cancer.
Hongladaromp W; Tantipalakorn C; Charoenkwan K; Srisomboon J
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2014; 15(2):887-90. PubMed ID: 24568513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Survival Outcomes in Patients With 2018 FIGO Stage IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated With Laparoscopic
Zhao W; Xiao Y; Zhao W; Yang Q; Bi F
Front Oncol; 2021; 11():682849. PubMed ID: 34222001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. [Clinical analysis of 32 cases with neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix in early-stage disease].
Wang Z; Wu L; Yao H; Sun Y; Li X; Li B; Zhang R; Ma S; Huang M
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2015 Mar; 50(3):198-203. PubMed ID: 26268410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of different lymph node staging systems in patients with node-positive cervical squamous cell carcinoma following radical surgery.
Guo Q; Zhu J; Wu Y; Wen H; Xia L; Yu M; Wang S; Ju X; Wu X
J Cancer; 2020; 11(24):7339-7347. PubMed ID: 33193898
[No 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. Survival analysis of Stage IIA1 and IIA2 cervical cancer patients.
Lai JC; Chou YJ; Huang N; Tsai JJ; Huang SM; Yang YC; Chang CL; Wang KL
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Mar; 52(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 23548215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comprehensive analysis of the factors of positive pelvic lymph nodes on survival of cervical cancer patients with 2018 FIGO stage IIIC1p.
Yan DD; Tang Q; Tu YQ; Chen JH; Lv XJ
Cancer Manag Res; 2019; 11():4223-4230. PubMed ID: 31123422
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Risk Stratification Based on Metastatic Pelvic Lymph Node Status in Stage IIIC1p Cervical Cancer.
Li A; Wang L; Jiang Q; Wu W; Huang B; Zhu H
Cancer Manag Res; 2020; 12():6431-6439. PubMed ID: 32801883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prognostic factors of 2018 FIGO stage IB-IIA cervical cancer with absence of high/ intermediate surgical-pathological risk factors.
Shibuya Y; Shimada M; Tsuji K; Shigeta S; Tanase Y; Matsuo K; Yamaguchi S; Kanao H; Saito T; Mikami M
Jpn J Clin Oncol; 2022 Nov; 52(11):1289-1296. PubMed ID: 35913375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Significance of prognostic evaluation of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 staging system on stage I endometrioid adenocarcinoma].
Wang ZQ; Zhang Y; Wang JL; Shen DH; Mu T; Zhao X; Yao YY; Bai Y; Wei LH
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2012 Jan; 47(1):33-9. PubMed ID: 22455691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
