0.829
IF
20
MNiSW
166.26
ICV
RESEARCH PAPER
 
CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
 
 

Place of residence does not significantly influence radiological morphology of cervical cancer

Franciszek Burdan 1, 2  ,  
Jerzy Walocha 4,  
 
1
St. John’s Cancer Center; Lublin, Poland
2
Human Anatomy Department, Medical Univeristy of Lublin; Lublin, Poland
3
Department of Clinical Pathomorphology, Medical University of Lublin; Lublin, Poland
4
Department of Anatomy, Jagiellonian University, Collegium Medicum; Krakow, Poland
Ann Agric Environ Med 2017;24(3):527–531
KEYWORDS:
ABSTRACT:
Introduction and objective:
Cervical squamous cell carcinoma is one of the most common malignancies of women. Its incidence and morphology was analyzed based on the magnetic resonance (MR) data among rural and urban residents.

Material and Methods:
The study involved 61 Caucasian women (58.26±9.63 years) preliminary diagnosed with a cervical cancer without any previous treatment. Standard MR examination, including diffusion weighted imagining, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value measurement and dynamic contrast enhancement, was performed.

Results:
The rural residents (n=22) were insignificantly older. Their first and last menstruation were observed later and number of pregnancy was higher than in urban women (n=39). However, the incidence of miscarriage was insignificantly rarer. All the tumour linear diameters as well as its volume were insignificantly higher in rural women. The ADC value of the cervical tumor was insignificantly lower, while ADC of lymphatic nodules was higher in rural women. Insignificant changes in tumour grade between both examined groups were found in histological, clinical and radiological examinations. Place of residence did not influence any clinical symptoms nor tumour volume and its ADC. Colporrhoea and colpodynia were insignificantly more often observed in urban women, while parametrium, urinary bladder and rectal infiltrations were more commonly seen in rural residents. Higher risk of lymphatic spread to the internal iliac and parametral lymphatic nodes was reporte[b]d in the rural community.

Conclusions:
Cervical cancer had similar morphology and growth pattern, regardless of the place of residence. However, a insignificantly larger tumour size among rural residents may suggest a higher incidence of lymphatic spread, probably as a result of less aaccess to modern health care.



CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Franciszek Burdan   
Human Anatomy Department, Medical Univeristy of Lublin; Lublin, Poland
 
REFERENCES:
1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers CD, Parkin D. GLOBOCAN 2008. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; Year. Available at: http://globocan.iarc.fr. 2010. (accessed 20/07/2013).
2. Klimek M, Kruczak A, Ryś J, Mularz K, Halaszka K, Przewoźnik M, et al. Clinico-morphological parameters affecting survival of patients with advanced cervical cancer. Pol J Pathol. 2011; 62(4): 250–256.
3. Mocarska A, Starosławska E, Żelazowska-Cieślińska I, Łosicki M, Stasiewicz D, Kieszko D, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of the cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2012; 33(194): 101–106.
4. Jarząbek-Bielecka G, Durda M, Sowińska-Przepiera E, Kaczmarek M, Kędzia W. Sexual activity among young women. Medical and legal aspects. Ginekol Pol. 2012; 83(11): 827–834.
5. Schluterman NH, Sow SO, Traore CB, Bakarou K, Dembelé R, Sacko F, et al. Differences in patterns of high-risk human papillomavirus infection between urban and rural low-resource settings: cross-sectional findings from Mali. BMC Womens Health. 2013; 13: 4.
6. Biraro S, Ruzagira E, Kamali A, Whitworth J, Grosskurth H, Weiss HA. HIV-1 transmission within marriage in rural Uganda: a longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2013; 8(2): e55060.
7. Freeman SJ, Aly AM, Kataoka MY, Addley HC, Reinhold C, Sala E. The revised FIGO staging system for uterine malignancies: implications for MR imaging. Radiographics. 2012; 32(6): 1805–1827.
8. Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T, Bergman A, Brkljacic B, Danza F, et al. Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2011; 21(5): 1102–1110.
9. Lin G, Ho KC, Wang JJ, Ng KK, Wai YY, Chen YT, et al. Detection of lymph node metastasis in cervical and uterine cancers by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 28(1): 128–135.
10. Liyanage SH, Roberts CA, Rockall AG. MRI and PET scans for primary staging and detection of cervical cancer recurrence. Womens Health (Lond Engl). 2010; 6(2): 251–267.
11. Hunjung K, Woochul K, Mijo L, Song E, Loh JK. Tumor volume and uterine body invasion assessed by MRI for prediction of outcome in cervical carcinoma treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007; 37(11): 858–866.
12. Jońska-Gmyrek J, Żółciak-Siwińska A, Gmyrek L, Staniaszek J, Lindner B, Andrzejuk J. Influence of tumor diameter on treatment results in cervical cancer patients. Ginekol Pol. 2012; 83(8): 576–580.
13. Olsen JR, Esthappan J, DeWees T, Narra VR, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, et al. Tumor volume and subvolume concordance between FDG-PET/CT and diffusion-weighted MRI for squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 37(2): 431–434.
14. Esthappan J, Ma DJ, Narra VR, Raptis CA, Grigsby PW. Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient maps to T2-weighted images for target delineation in cervix cancer brachytherapy. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2011; 3(4): 193–198.
15. Pointreau Y, Ruffier Loubière A, Denis F, Barillot I. Cervix cancer. Cancer Radiother. 2010; 14(Suppl 1): S147–S153.
16. Kuang F, Ren J, Zhong Q, Liyuan F, Huan Y, Chen Z. The value of apparent diffusion coefficient in the assessment of cervical cancer. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23(4): 1050–1058.
17. Pérez-Gómez B, Aragonés N, Gustavsson P, Lope V, López-Abente G, Pollán M. Socio-economic class, rurality and risk of cutaneous melanoma by site and gender in Sweden. BMC Public Health. 2008; 8: 33.
18. Schouten LJ, Meijer H, Huveneers JA, Kiemeney LA. Urban-rural differences in cancer incidence in The Netherlands 1989–1991. Int J Epidemiol. 1996; 25(4): 729–736.
19. Ocaña-Riola R, Sánchez-Cantalejo C, Rosell J, Sánchez-Cantalejo E, Daponte A. Socio-economic level, farming activities and risk of cancer in small areas of Southern Spain. Eur J Epidemiol. 2004; 19(7): 643–650.
20. Maślach D, Krzyżak M, Szpak A, Owoc A, Gębska-Kuczerowska A, Bielska-Lasota M. Differences in results of breast cancer curative treatment between urban/rural female population in Podlaskie Voivodship of Poland before introduction of the National Cancer Control Programme. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2013; 20(1): 68–71.
21. Pons-Vigués M, Puigpinós-Riera R, Serral G, Pasarín MI, Rodríguez D, Pérez G, et al. Knowledge, attitude and perceptions of breast cancer screening among native and immigrant women in Barcelona, Spain. Psychooncology. 2012; 21(6): 618–629.
22. Levin KA, Davies CA, Douglas GV, Pitts NB. Urban-rural differences in dental caries of 5-year old children in Scotland. Soc Sci Med. 2010; 71(11): 2020–2027.
23. Spaczyński M, Karowicz-Bilinska A, Rokita W, Molińska-Glura M, Januszek-Michalecka L, Seroczyński P, et al. Attendance rate in the Polish Cervical Cancer Screening Program in the years 2007–2009. Ginekol Pol. 2010; 81(9): 655–663.
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966