Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 310

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early Invasive Cervical Cancer: Tumor Delineation by Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Computed Tomography, and Clinical Examination, Verified by Pathologic Results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 Intergroup Study

Open access
Mitchell, Donald G., Snyder, Bradley, Coakley, Fergus, Reinhold, Caroline, Thomas, Gillian, Amendola, Marco, Schwartz, Lawrence H., Woodward, Paula, Pannu, Harpreet, Hricak, Hedvig·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and clinical examination for delineating early cervical cancer and for measuring tumor size. Patients and Methods: A 25-center study enrolled 208 patients with biopsy-proven invasive cervical cancer for MRI and CT before attempted curative radical hysterectomy. Each imaging study was interpreted prospectively by one onsite radiologist and retrospectively by four independent offsite radiologists, who were all blinded to surgical, histopathologic, and other imaging findings. Likelihood of cervical stromal and uterine body involvement was rated on a 5-point scale. Tumor size measurements were attempted in three axes. Surgical pathology was the standard of reference. Results: Neither MRI nor CT was accurate for evaluating cervical stroma. For uterine body involvement, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was higher for MRI than for CT for both prospective (0.80 v 0.66, respectively; P = .01) and retrospective (0.68 v 0.57, respectively; P = .02) readings. Retrospective readers could measure diameter by CT in 35% to 73% of patients and by MRI in 79% to 94% of patients. Prospective readers had the highest Spearman correlation coefficient with pathologic measurement for MRI (r s = 0.54), followed by CT (r s = 0.45) and clinical examination (r s = 0.37; P < .0001 for all). Spearman correlation of multiobserver diameter measurements for MRI (r s = 0.58; P < .0001) was double that for CT (r s = 0.27; P = .03). Conclusion: In patients with cervical cancer, MRI is superior to CT and clinical examination for evaluating uterine body involvement and measuring tumor size, but no method was accurate for evaluating cervical stroma.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2006.07.4799

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 310

Metadata

Authors
Mitchell, D. G., Snyder, B., Coakley, F., Reinhold, C., Thomas, G., Amendola, M., Schwartz, L. H., Woodward, P., Pannu, H., & Hricak, H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-12-20
Volume
24
Issue
36
Pages
5687-5694
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2084581394
Cited by
310
References
2
FWCI
9.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Early Invasive Cervical Cancer: Tumor Delineation by Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Computed Tomography, and Clinical Examination, Verified by Pathologic Results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 Intergroup Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.07.4799
The paper
Mitchell, D. G., Snyder, B., Coakley, F., Reinhold, C., Thomas, G., Amendola, M., Schwartz, L. H., Woodward, P., Pannu, H., & Hricak, H. (2006). Early Invasive Cervical Cancer: Tumor Delineation by Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Computed Tomography, and Clinical Examination, Verified by Pathologic Results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 Intergroup Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.07.4799

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.