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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
Kosary, C. L. (1994) · Seminars in Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1002/ssu.2980100107 · Cited by 417
Cited by
Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri
Bhatla, N., Berek, J. S., Cuello Fredes, M., Denny, L. A., Grenman, S., Karunaratne, K., Kehoe, S. T., Konishi, I., Olawaiye, A. B., Prat, J., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.12749 · Cited by 1,048
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.