JUM Parker Laboratories, Inc
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Murolo, C.
Right arrow Articles by et, al.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Murolo, C.
Right arrow Articles by et, al.

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol 8, Issue 8 441-443, Copyright © 1989 by American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine


JOURNAL ARTICLE

Ultrasound examination in ovarian cancer patients. A comparison with second look laparotomy

C. Murolo, S. Costantini, G. Foglia, T. Guido, F. Odicino, M. Pace, S. Parodi, G. Pino, N. Ragni, L. Repetto and al. et
Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Genova, Italy.

A series of 129 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III-IV ovarian cancer, were evaluated with ultrasound examination and second look surgery. Results of both modalities were correlated in order to assess the reliability of ultrasound in detecting residual disease. After six cycles of chemotherapy, ultrasound was negative in 94 patients and positive in 35 patients. At second look, 57 patients were in complete pathologic remission, 16 had microscopic residual disease, 23 had macroscopic disease less than 2 cm, and 33 had macroscopic disease greater than 2 cm. Correlating ultrasonography and laparotomy, high correlations were seen in patients with no residual disease (92.2%); on the other hand, ultrasound examinations exhibited poor sensitivity and specificity in patients with microscopic disease (6.2%) and residual disease less than 2 cm (8.6%). Using ultrasound discrimination among patients with no residual disease, microscopic disease, or macroscopic disease less than 2 cm does not appear possible. Our suggestion is that ultrasound is not able to replace second look laparotomy in the detection of minimal residual disease in ovarian cancer patients.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the American Animal Hospital AssociationHome page
G. E. Pastore, C. R. Lamb, and V. Lipscomb
Comparison of the Results of Abdominal Ultrasonography and Exploratory Laparotomy in the Dog and Cat
J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc., September 1, 2007; 43(5): 264 - 269.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical As
Gynecologic Sonography: Report of the Ultrasonography Task Force
JAMA, June 5, 1991; 265(21): 2851 - 2855.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.