378 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32665147)
1. Predictors of recurrence following laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A multi-institutional study.
Casarin J; Buda A; Bogani G; Fanfani F; Papadia A; Ceccaroni M; Malzoni M; Pellegrino A; Ferrari F; Greggi S; Uccella S; Pinelli C; Cromi A; Ditto A; Di Martino G; Anchora LP; Falcone F; Bonfiglio F; Odicino F; Mueller M; Scambia G; Raspagliesi F; Landoni F; Ghezzi F
Gynecol Oncol; 2020 Oct; 159(1):164-170. PubMed ID: 32665147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Preoperative Conization and Risk of Recurrence in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Study.
Casarin J; Bogani G; Papadia A; Ditto A; Pinelli C; Garzon S; Donadello N; Laganà AS; Cromi A; Mueller M; Raspagliesi F; Ghezzi F
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Jan; 28(1):117-123. PubMed ID: 32320800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns in early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy: The Norwegian Radium Hospital experience.
Sert BM; Kristensen GB; Kleppe A; Dørum A
Gynecol Oncol; 2021 Aug; 162(2):284-291. PubMed ID: 34083029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Association of preoperative conization with recurrences after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for FIGO 2018 stage IB1 cervical cancer.
Ding Y; Zhang X; Qiu J; Li C; Hua K
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2023 Jun; 307(6):1901-1909. PubMed ID: 36329212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Primary conization overcomes the risk of developing local recurrence following laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer.
Bogani G; Ditto A; Chiappa V; Pinelli C; Sonetto C; Raspagliesi F
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2020 Oct; 151(1):43-48. PubMed ID: 32511745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Recurrence Rates in Patients With Cervical Cancer Treated With Abdominal Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Review Study.
Uppal S; Gehrig PA; Peng K; Bixel KL; Matsuo K; Vetter MH; Davidson BA; Cisa MP; Lees BF; Brunette LL; Tucker K; Stuart Staley A; Gotlieb WH; Holloway RW; Essel KG; Holman LL; Goldfeld E; Olawaiye A; Rose SL
J Clin Oncol; 2020 Apr; 38(10):1030-1040. PubMed ID: 32031867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The clinical outcome of patients with stage Ia1 and Ia2 squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Cooperation Task Force (CTF) study.
Gadducci A; Sartori E; Maggino T; Landoni F; Zola P; Cosio S; Pasinetti B; Alessi C; Maneo A; Ferrero A
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 2003; 24(6):513-6. PubMed ID: 14658592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy: an analysis of oncologic outcomes from Hospital Italiano (Argentina).
Odetto D; Puga MC; Saadi J; Noll F; Perrotta M
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2019 Jun; 29(5):863-868. PubMed ID: 31155517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff - a multicenter analysis.
Kohler C; Hertel H; Herrmann J; Marnitz S; Mallmann P; Favero G; Plaikner A; Martus P; Gajda M; Schneider A
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2019 Jun; 29(5):845-850. PubMed ID: 31155516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Predictive factors for residual disease in hysterectomy specimens after conization in early-stage cervical cancer.
Wong AS; Li WH; Cheung TH
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2016 Apr; 199():21-6. PubMed ID: 26894378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.
Ramirez PT; Frumovitz M; Pareja R; Lopez A; Vieira M; Ribeiro R; Buda A; Yan X; Shuzhong Y; Chetty N; Isla D; Tamura M; Zhu T; Robledo KP; Gebski V; Asher R; Behan V; Nicklin JL; Coleman RL; Obermair A
N Engl J Med; 2018 Nov; 379(20):1895-1904. PubMed ID: 30380365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis.
Rodriguez J; Rauh-Hain JA; Saenz J; Isla DO; Rendon Pereira GJ; Odetto D; Martinelli F; Villoslada V; Zapardiel I; Trujillo LM; Perez M; Hernandez M; Saadi JM; Raspagliesi F; Valdivia H; Siegrist J; Fu S; Hernandez Nava M; Echeverry L; Noll F; Ditto A; Lopez A; Hernandez A; Pareja R
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2021 Apr; 31(4):504-511. PubMed ID: 33504547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison of stages IB1 and IB2 cervical cancers treated with radical hysterectomy. Is size the real difference?
Rutledge TL; Kamelle SA; Tillmanns TD; Gould NS; Wright JD; Cohn DE; Herzog TJ; Rader JS; Gold MA; Johnson GA; Walker JL; Mannel RS; McMeekin DS
Gynecol Oncol; 2004 Oct; 95(1):70-6. PubMed ID: 15385112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of abdominal and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer.
Kim SI; Lee J; Hong J; Lee SJ; Park DC; Yoon JH
Int J Med Sci; 2021; 18(5):1312-1317. PubMed ID: 33526992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Surgical treatment of microinvasive cervical cancer: analysis of pathologic features with implications on radicality.
Yoneda JY; Braganca JF; Sarian LO; Borba PP; Conceição JC; Zeferino LC
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2015 May; 25(4):694-8. PubMed ID: 25742569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Quality of life in patients with cervical cancer after open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (LACC): a secondary outcome of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.
Frumovitz M; Obermair A; Coleman RL; Pareja R; Lopez A; Ribero R; Isla D; Rendon G; Bernardini MQ; Buda A; Moretti-Marquez R; Zevallos A; Vieira MA; Zhu T; Land RP; Nicklin J; Asher R; Robledo KP; Gebski V; Ramirez PT
Lancet Oncol; 2020 Jun; 21(6):851-860. PubMed ID: 32502445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer Incorporating 2018 FIGO Staging.
Levine MD; Brown J; Crane EK; Tait DL; Naumann RW
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Apr; 28(4):824-828. PubMed ID: 32730990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in stage I a2- II a2 cervical cancer: a matched cohort study].
Wang W; Shang C; Huang J; Chen S; Shen H; Yao S
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2015 Dec; 50(12):894-901. PubMed ID: 26887872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Feasibility and outcome of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with no-look no-touch technique for FIGO IB1 cervical cancer.
Kanao H; Matsuo K; Aoki Y; Tanigawa T; Nomura H; Okamoto S; Takeshima N
J Gynecol Oncol; 2019 May; 30(3):e71. PubMed ID: 30887768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm.
Li Z; Chen C; Liu P; Duan H; Liu M; Xu Y; Li P; Zhang W; Jiang H; Bin X; Lang J
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2021 Aug; 47(8):2125-2133. PubMed ID: 33781626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
