127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37935434)
1. 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]
2. A Risk Stratification for Patients with Cervical Cancer in Stage IIIC1 of the 2018 FIGO Staging System.
Liu X; Wang W; Hu K; Zhang F; Hou X; Yan J; Meng Q; Zhou Z; Miao Z; Guan H; Ma J; Shen J; Zhen H; Wang W
Sci Rep; 2020 Jan; 10(1):362. PubMed ID: 31941966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Validation of the 2018 FIGO Staging System for Predicting the Prognosis of Patients With Stage IIIC Cervical Cancer.
Long X; He M; Yang L; Zou D; Wang D; Chen Y; Zhou Q
Clin Med Insights Oncol; 2023; 17():11795549221146652. PubMed ID: 36726607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Treatment Strategies and Prognostic Factors of 2018 FIGO Stage IIIC Cervical Cancer: A Review.
Qin F; Pang H; Yu T; Luo Y; Dong Y
Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2022; 21():15330338221086403. PubMed ID: 35341413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Parametrial involvement and decreased survival of women with FIGO stage IIIC1 cervical cancer.
Chang H; Wang M; Liu Y; Wu Y
J Gynecol Oncol; 2023 Jul; 34(4):e46. PubMed ID: 36929577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. The upper limit of optimal tumor size in patients with FIGO 2018 stage IB2 cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy.
Hwang WY; Kim JH; Suh DH; Kim K; No JH; Kim YB
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2020 Jul; 30(7):975-980. PubMed ID: 32467336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Prophylactic Extended-Field Irradiation Versus Pelvic Irradiation in Patients With Cervical Cancer With 2018 FIGO Stage IIIC1 Disease.
Wang W; Meng Q; Zhou Y; Hu K; Zhang F; Qiu J; Hou X; Lian X; Yan J; Liu Z; Sun S; Ma J; Liu X
Pract Radiat Oncol; 2023; 13(5):e409-e415. PubMed ID: 37075837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Preoperative platelet count improves the prognostic prediction of the FIGO staging system for operable cervical cancer patients.
Zheng RR; Huang XX; Jin C; Zhuang XX; Ye LC; Zheng FY; Lin F
Clin Chim Acta; 2017 Oct; 473():198-203. PubMed ID: 27836106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Significance of para-aortic lymph node evaluation in patients with FIGO IIIC1 cervical cancer.
Cho WK; Kim YJ; Kim H; Kim YS; Park W
Jpn J Clin Oncol; 2020 Sep; 50(10):1150-1156. PubMed ID: 32577748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Pelvic lymph node F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a prognostic biomarker in newly diagnosed patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.
Kidd EA; Siegel BA; Dehdashti F; Grigsby PW
Cancer; 2010 Mar; 116(6):1469-75. PubMed ID: 20108309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Number of Removed Pelvic Lymph Nodes as a Prognostic Marker in FIGO Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer with Negative Lymph Nodes.
Wang R; Tao X; Wu X; Jiang H; Xia H
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2020; 27(4):946-952. PubMed ID: 31394263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
