Page 18 - ESGO - Vulvar cancer - Complete report_fxd2

Table 2. Original studies presenting data on pathology slide review

Authorreference Year N Major discrepancy Minor discrepancy

Beugeling et al.12 2014 121 1.7% (2/121) 0% (0/121)
10.6% (12/113)
Santoso et al.13 1998 113 3.5% (4/113) 32.1% (9/28)
10.7% (3/28)
Chafe et al.14 2000 28 7.1% (2/28) 0% (0/19)
15.4% (2/13)
Khalifa et al.15 2003 28 0% (0/28)

Selman et al.16 1999 19 15.8% (3/19)

Chan et al.17 1999 13 15.4% (2/13)

Table 3. Original studies presenting data on the accuracy of imaging to assess the groin node status

Authorreference Year TP FP TN FN Sensitivity Specificity

MRI 2002 8 1 10 1 89% 91%
Hawnaur et al.23* 2002 4 5 30 1 80% 56%
2006
Sohaib et al.24* 85%
12 14 80 11 52% 89%
Bipat et al.25 82.1
(observer 1)
81.3%
(observer 2) 12 11 90 11 52% 53.3%
Singh et al.20 87.5%
Kataoka et al.26 2006 18 10 46 3 85.7% 50.0%
27.3%
(short axis/long axis ratio ≥ 0.75) 2010 3 13 4 86.7%
26 90%
62%
(contour) 21 7 8 9 70.0% 100%

(necrosis) 12 2 14 18 40.0% 91%
96%
(loss of fatty hilum) 24 8 8 6 80.0% 87%
83%
(similarity of signal intensity to vulva lesion) 23 8 3 3 88.5%
90%
PET 2002 6 2 18 3 67% 58%
Cohn et al.27* 1999 9 13 21 3 75% 87%
de Hullu et al.28* 2014 6 086 50%
Kamran et al.29
2013 29 6 63 9 76%
Ultrasound 2003 24 2 43 4 86%
de Gregorio et al.34 1993 9 5 34 2 81%
Hall et al.31* 1999 11 5 25 2 85%
Makela et al.32* 2000
Moskovic et al.30* 5 3 28 6 45%
Abang Mohammed et al.33*
(short axis)

(long/shot axis ratio) 6 10 14 0 100%

(combined) 5 3 21 1 83%

* studies included in the systematic review published by Selman et al.22, FN: false negative, FP false positive, TN: true
negative, TP: true positive.

 VULVAR CANCER - GUIDELINES 
18