Home > Journals > Minerva Ginecologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ginecologica 2000 September;52(9) > Minerva Ginecologica 2000 September;52(9):345-50

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

MINERVA GINECOLOGICA

A Journal on Obstetrics and Gynecology


Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index


eTOC

 

REVIEWS  


Minerva Ginecologica 2000 September;52(9):345-50

language: Italian

Controversies regarding microinvasive cervical cancer staging

Di Leo S., Caragliano L., Cassaro N., Meli M. T., Consalvo P., Caschetto S.


PDF  


Controversies regarding the nosographical classification and staging of microinvasive cervical cancer are still the subject of debate largely based on two schools of thought: one privileges the morphovolumetric criterion, while the other, in an attempt to overcome one of the general aims of FIGO staging, pragmatically assigns a therapeutic orientation to it and proposes staging criteria that the opposing school finds arbitrary and not satisfactory for prognostic purposes. The key point that generates most of the dissension is the correctness of the biopsy procedures and the histological process used to examine material. The general rules for FIGO staging are rightly based on the limitation that clinical staging cannot be modified, even when subsequent histological or surgical findings show a different extension of the disease. But this is true of ''clinical'' carcinomas for which the diagnostic and staging criteria are still mainly clinical using procedures that have been classified by FIGO itself. However, in those cases where the diagnosis of staging is exclusively microscopic, as in IA, clear indications should be given regarding the procedures and failure to observe them should preclude staging.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail