Radiological Imaging in Gynaecological Malignancies

2016 ◽  
pp. 29-43
Author(s):  
Nishat Bharwani ◽  
Victoria Stewart
2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Pinidis ◽  
A Liberis ◽  
Z Koukouli ◽  
P Naoumis ◽  
C Bouschanetsis ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1142-1159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvatore Gizzo ◽  
Michela Quaranta ◽  
Giovanni Battista Nardelli ◽  
Marco Noventa

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 200424
Author(s):  
Amy Joy Spies ◽  
Maryna Steyn ◽  
Daniel Nicholas Prince ◽  
Desiré Brits

Author(s):  
Oktay Ucer ◽  
Talha Muezzinoglu ◽  
Ender Ozden ◽  
Guven Aslan ◽  
Volkan Izol ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482199867
Author(s):  
Madison E. Morgan ◽  
Catherine T. Brown ◽  
Tawnya M. Vernon ◽  
Brian W. Gross ◽  
Daniel Wu ◽  
...  

Introduction Diagnostic radiology interpretive errors in trauma patients can lead to missed diagnoses, compromising patient care. Due to this, our level II trauma center implemented a reread protocol of all radiographic imaging within 24 hours on our highest trauma activation level (Code T). We sought to determine the efficacy of this reread protocol in identifying missed diagnoses in Code T patients. We hypothesized that a few, but clinically relevant errors, would be identified upon reread. Methods All radiographic study findings (initial read and reread) performed for Code T admissions from July 2015 to May 2016 were queried. The reviewed radiological imaging was given one of four designations: agree with interpretation, minor (non-life threatening) nonclinically relevant error(s)—addendum/correction required or clinically relevant error(s) (major [life threatening] and minor)—addendum/correction required, and trauma surgeon notified. The results were compiled, and the number of each type of error was calculated. Results Of the 752 radiological imaging studies reviewed on the 121 Code T patients during this period, 3 (0.40%) contained minor clinically relevant errors, 11 (1.46%) contained errors that were not clinically relevant, and 738 (98.1%) agreed with the original interpretation. The three clinically relevant errors included a right mandibular fracture found on X-ray and a temporal bone fracture that crossed the clivus and bilateral rib fractures found on computerized tomography. Discussion Clinically relevant errors, although minimal, were discovered during rereads for Code T patients. Although the clinical errors were significant, none affected patient outcomes. We propose that the implementation of reread protocols should be based upon institution-specific practices.


2021 ◽  
Vol 81 (05) ◽  
pp. 549-554
Author(s):  
Marina Sourouni ◽  
Ludwig Kiesel

AbstractRapid advances in oncology have led to an increased survival rate in cancer patients, who live long enough to reach the natural age of menopause or experience the end of gonadal function as a side effect of oncological treatment. Survivors after gynaecological malignancies are a major challenge as these diseases are hormone-dependent and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) possibly increases the risk of recurrence. This article is based on a selective literature search for relevant studies and guidelines regarding HRT after gynaecological malignancies and provides a broad overview of current research. The data for assessing the oncological safety of HRT after gynaecological malignancy are insufficient overall. According to current knowledge, HRT is fundamentally contraindicated after breast and endometrial cancer. After ovarian cancer, HRT can be used after assessment of the risks and benefits, while there is usually no contraindication to HRT after vulvar, vaginal or cervical cancer.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i34-i36
Author(s):  
F E Martin ◽  
T Kalsi ◽  
J K Dhesi ◽  
J S L Partridge

Abstract Introduction Older women are increasingly undergoing surgery for gynaecological malignancies. Although survival data is available other outcomes such as functional recovery are less well described. However older people are both more vulnerable to changes in function and often prioritise function over survival. There is limited published research examining function outside of context of sexual or urodynamic function following gynaeoncology surgery but a large body or research exists examining health-related quality of life (HrQOL) both as a pre-operative risk factor for survival and as a post-treatment outcome measure in its own right. HRQOL tools may report on physical function as a subcomponent within composite tools. This systematic review and narrative synthesis describes functional recovery after gynae-oncology surgery with respect to baseline characteristics which - if identified – could enable pre- or post-operative risk reduction. Methods Systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and Cochrane Library between 1974-2018. Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts/papers for inclusion against the following criteria:Mean/median age >60Gynaeoncological treatment includes surgery (RCTs, observational or mixed methods studies).Any measure of functional ability as defined by WHO ICF classification section D1–D7 inclusive, D855, D860-79 and D9 using validated tool.Minimum pre-operative and one post-operative measure. Results analysed and presented using narrative synthesis. Results Sixteen studies identified (7 Endometrial, 2 Ovarian, 2 Vulval, 6 mixed cancer types). 1/16 used a standalone functional assessment tool, 15/16 used Health-Related Quality of Life tools (EORTC QLQ C30 (10), FACT-G (3), SF-36 (3)) comprising items describing function. More studies showed full recovery to baseline (n=11) than incomplete recovery (n=5 including 2 reporting age as a negative association). Recovery was more likely and occurred faster in minimally-invasive surgery. 1 study demonstrated failure to recover baseline functional independence by 12 months.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document