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 *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37862783)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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. Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and abdominal surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer.
    Chen C; Guo J; Liu P; Li Z; Jiang H; Zhu Q; Bin X; Lang J
    J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2021 Apr; 47(4):1516-1526. PubMed ID: 33527615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm cervical cancer with visible or invisible tumors: a multicentre retrospective study.
    Li P; Chen L; Ni Y; Liu J; Li D; Guo J; Liu Z; Jin S; Xu Y; Li Z; Wang L; Bin X; Lang J; Liu P; Chen C
    J Gynecol Oncol; 2021 Mar; 32(2):e17. PubMed ID: 33470062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study.
    Chen B; Ji M; Li P; Liu P; Zou W; Zhao Z; Qu B; Li Z; Bin X; Lang J; Wang H; Chen C
    Gynecol Oncol; 2020 May; 157(2):429-436. PubMed ID: 32067814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Impact of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on survival outcome in patients with FIGO stage IB cervical cancer: A matching study of two institutional hospitals in Korea.
    Kim SI; Lee M; Lee S; Suh DH; Kim HS; Kim K; Chung HH; No JH; Kim JW; Park NH; Song YS; Kim YB
    Gynecol Oncol; 2019 Oct; 155(1):75-82. PubMed ID: 31383569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [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]  

  • 15. Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm.
    Chen X; Zhao N; Ye P; Chen J; Nan X; Zhao H; Zhou K; Zhang Y; Xue J; Zhou H; Shang H; Zhu H; Leanne VM; Yan X
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2020 May; 30(5):564-571. PubMed ID: 32276941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Surveillance of radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer in the early experienced period of minimally invasive surgery in Japan.
    Ohta T; Nagase S; Okui Y; Enomoto T; Yamagami W; Mikami M; Tokunaga H; Ino K; Ushijima K; Shozu M; Tashiro H; Mandai M; Miyamoto S; Morishige KI; Yoshida Y; Yoshino K; Saito T; Kobayashi E; Kobayashi H; Takekuma M; Terai Y; Fujii T; Kanao H; Aoki D; Katabuchi H; Yaegashi N
    Int J Clin Oncol; 2021 Dec; 26(12):2318-2330. PubMed ID: 34435284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Oncologic results and surgical morbidity of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in the treatment of FIGO stage IB cervical cancer: long-term follow-up.
    Park NY; Chong GO; Hong DG; Cho YL; Park IS; Lee YS
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2011 Feb; 21(2):355-62. PubMed ID: 21270616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater.
    Kong TW; Chang SJ; Lee J; Paek J; Ryu HS
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2014 Feb; 24(2):280-8. PubMed ID: 24407571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.