ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the prognostic value of preoperative ultrasound tumor size in EC through a single center, observational, retrospective, cohort study. MethodsMedical records and electronic clinical databases were searched for all consecutive patients with EC, preoperative ultrasound scans available to ad hoc estimate tumor size, and a follow-up of at least 2-year, at our Institution from January 2010 to June 2018. Patients were divided into two groups based on different dimensional cut-offs for the maximum tumor diameter: 2, 3 and 4 cm. Differences in overall survival (OS), disease specific survival (DSS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed among the groups by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and the log-rank test. Results108 patients were included in the study. OS, DSS and PFS did not significantly differ between the groups based on the different tumor diameter cut-offs. No significant differences were found among the groups sub-stratified by age, BMI, FIGO stage, FIGO grade, lymphovascular space invasion status, myometrial invasion, lymph nodal involvement, histotype, and adjuvant treatment. ConclusionsPreoperative ultrasound tumor size does not appear as a prognostic factor in EC women.

Ambrosio, M., Raffone, A., Alletto, A., Cini, C., Filipponi, F., Neola, D., et al. (2022). Is preoperative ultrasound tumor size a prognostic factor in endometrial carcinoma patients?. FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 12, 1-9 [10.3389/fonc.2022.993629].

Is preoperative ultrasound tumor size a prognostic factor in endometrial carcinoma patients?

Ambrosio, Marco;Raffone, Antonio
;
Alletto, Andrea;Cini, Chiara;Filipponi, Francesco;Fabbri, Matilde;Arena, Alessandro;Raimondo, Diego
;
Salucci, Paolo;Guerrini, Manuela;Paradisi, Roberto;Seracchioli, Renato;Casadio, Paolo
2022

Abstract

ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the prognostic value of preoperative ultrasound tumor size in EC through a single center, observational, retrospective, cohort study. MethodsMedical records and electronic clinical databases were searched for all consecutive patients with EC, preoperative ultrasound scans available to ad hoc estimate tumor size, and a follow-up of at least 2-year, at our Institution from January 2010 to June 2018. Patients were divided into two groups based on different dimensional cut-offs for the maximum tumor diameter: 2, 3 and 4 cm. Differences in overall survival (OS), disease specific survival (DSS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed among the groups by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and the log-rank test. Results108 patients were included in the study. OS, DSS and PFS did not significantly differ between the groups based on the different tumor diameter cut-offs. No significant differences were found among the groups sub-stratified by age, BMI, FIGO stage, FIGO grade, lymphovascular space invasion status, myometrial invasion, lymph nodal involvement, histotype, and adjuvant treatment. ConclusionsPreoperative ultrasound tumor size does not appear as a prognostic factor in EC women.
2022
Ambrosio, M., Raffone, A., Alletto, A., Cini, C., Filipponi, F., Neola, D., et al. (2022). Is preoperative ultrasound tumor size a prognostic factor in endometrial carcinoma patients?. FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 12, 1-9 [10.3389/fonc.2022.993629].
Ambrosio, Marco; Raffone, Antonio; Alletto, Andrea; Cini, Chiara; Filipponi, Francesco; Neola, Daniele; Fabbri, Matilde; Arena, Alessandro; Raimondo, ...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
fonc-12-993629.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 1.58 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.58 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
3389.zip

accesso aperto

Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 7.24 MB
Formato Zip File
7.24 MB Zip File Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/906588
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact