These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36826114)

  • 21. Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
    Cusimano MC; Baxter NN; Gien LT; Moineddin R; Liu N; Dossa F; Willows K; Ferguson SE
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Dec; 221(6):619.e1-619.e24. PubMed ID: 31288006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Learning curve could affect oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
    Kim S; Min KJ; Lee S; Hong JH; Song JY; Lee JK; Lee NW
    Asian J Surg; 2021 Jan; 44(1):174-180. PubMed ID: 32467009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Regional trends of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and exploration of perioperative outcomes.
    Holtzman S; Chaoul J; Finkelstein M; Kolev V; Zakashansky K
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2022 Apr; 77():102095. PubMed ID: 35078009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: A two-center retrospective cohort study with pathologic review of usual-type adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma.
    Kim Y; Kim SI; Kim H; Lee M; Kim HS; Kim K; Chung HH; No JH; Kim YB; Kim JW; Park NH; Song YS; Lee C; Suh DH
    Gynecol Oncol; 2022 Oct; 167(1):28-36. PubMed ID: 35970602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Survival after minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer: is the intra-uterine manipulator to blame?
    Nica A; Kim SR; Gien LT; Covens A; Bernardini MQ; Bouchard-Fortier G; Kupets R; May T; Vicus D; Laframboise S; Hogen L; Cusimano MC; Ferguson SE
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2020 Dec; 30(12):1864-1870. PubMed ID: 33037109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Patterns of recurrence in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer: Comparison between minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy.
    Corrado G; Anchora LP; Bruni S; Sperduti I; Certelli C; Chiofalo B; Giannini A; D'Oria O; Bizzarri N; Legge F; Cosentino F; Turco LC; Vizza E; Scambia G; Ferrandina G
    Eur J Surg Oncol; 2023 Nov; 49(11):107047. PubMed ID: 37862783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Minimal-invasive or open approach for surgery of early cervical cancer: the treatment center matters.
    Gennari P; Gerken M; Mészáros J; Klinkhammer-Schalke M; Ortmann O; Eggemann H; Ignatov A
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2021 Aug; 304(2):503-510. PubMed ID: 33483846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effect of the surgical approach on survival outcomes in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A real-world multicenter study of a large Chinese cohort from 2006 to 2017.
    Guo C; Tang X; Meng Y; Zhang Y; Zhang X; Guo J; Lei X; Qiu J; Hua K
    Cancer Med; 2020 Aug; 9(16):5908-5921. PubMed ID: 32628356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy for early stage cervical cancer: A propensity score-matched cohort study.
    Dai D; Huang H; Feng Y; Wan T; Liu Z; Tong C; Liu J
    Cancer Med; 2020 Dec; 9(24):9236-9245. PubMed ID: 33236825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Repeat surgery in patients with cervical cancer stage FIGO IA1: a series of 156 cases and a review of the literature.
    Hefler LA; Polterauer S; Schneitter A; Concin N; Hofstetter G; Bentz E; Leipold H; Tempfer C; Reinthaller A
    Anticancer Res; 2010 Feb; 30(2):565-8. PubMed ID: 20332471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. SUCCOR cone study: conization before radical hysterectomy.
    Chacon E; Manzour N; Zanagnolo V; Querleu D; Núñez-Córdoba JM; Martin-Calvo N; Căpîlna ME; Fagotti A; Kucukmetin A; Mom C; Chakalova G; Shamistan A; Gil Moreno A; Malzoni M; Narducci F; Arencibia O; Raspagliesi F; Toptas T; Cibula D; Kaidarova D; Meydanli MM; Tavares M; Golub D; Perrone AM; Poka R; Tsolakidis D; Vujić G; Jedryka MA; Zusterzeel PLM; Beltman JJ; Goffin F; Haidopoulos D; Haller H; Jach R; Yezhova I; Berlev I; Bernardino M; Bharathan R; Lanner M; Maenpaa MM; Sukhin V; Feron JG; Fruscio R; Kukk K; Ponce J; Minguez JA; Vázquez-Vicente D; Castellanos T; Boria F; Alcazar JL; Chiva L; ;
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2022 Feb; 32(2):117-124. PubMed ID: 35039455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy without uterine manipulator for cervical cancer stage IB: description of the technique, our experience and results after the era of LACC trial.
    Kavallaris A; Chalvatzas N; Gkoutzioulis A; Zygouris D
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2021 Apr; 303(4):1039-1047. PubMed ID: 33068159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.
    Yang EJ; Kim NR; Lee AJ; Shim SH; Lee SJ
    Medicine (Baltimore); 2022 Feb; 101(8):e28911. PubMed ID: 35212297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter.
    Sun S; Cai J; Li R; Wang Y; Zhao J; Huang Y; Xu L; Yang Q; Wang Z
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2022 Sep; 306(3):623-637. PubMed ID: 35061066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Minimally invasive hysterectomy for stage IA cervical carcinoma: a survival analysis of the National Cancer Database.
    Nasioudis D; Byrne M; Ko EM; Haggerty AF; Cory L; Giuntoli Ii RL; Kim SH; Latif NA
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2021 Aug; 31(8):1099-1103. PubMed ID: 33962993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Safety and efficacy study of laparoscopic or robotic radical surgery using an endoscopic stapler for inhibiting tumour spillage of cervical malignant neoplasms evaluating survival (SOLUTION): a multi-centre, open-label, single-arm, phase II trial protocol.
    Park SJ; Kong TW; Kim T; Lee M; Choi CH; Shim SH; Yim GW; Lee S; Lee EJ; Lim MC; Chang SJ; Lee SJ; Lee SH; Song T; Lee YY; Kim HS; Nam EJ
    BMC Cancer; 2022 Mar; 22(1):331. PubMed ID: 35346103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Comparison of Prognosis between Minimally Invasive and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.
    Tanaka T; Ueda S; Miyamoto S; Hashida S; Terada S; Konishi H; Kogata Y; Taniguchi K; Komura K; Ohmichi M
    Curr Oncol; 2022 Mar; 29(4):2272-2283. PubMed ID: 35448159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.