Skip to main content

Table 1 The cTNM and the pTNM staging of the cohort involved in this study

From: cTNM vs. pTNM: the effect of not applying ultrasonography in the identification of cervical nodal disease

 

cTNM (with no US) Frequency (%)

pTNM

Frequency (%)

Tumour size underestimated

Nodal disease missed

T1N0M0

107 (43.7)

96 (39.2)

2 (T2)

5 (N1), 3 (N2)

T2N0M0

36 (14.7)

32 (13.1)

1 (T3)

5 (N1), 1 (N2)

T3N0M0

20 (8.2)

18 (7.3)

2 (T4)

1 (N1)

T4N0M0

45 (18.4)

42 (17.1)

-

4 (N1), 1 (N2)

T1N1M0

10 (4.1)

13 (5.3)

2 (T2)

 

T2N1M0

12 (4.9)

16 (6.5)

1 (T3)

1 (N2)

T3N1M0

9 (3.7)

10 (4.1)

-

2 (N2)

T4N1M0

6 (2.4)

10 (4.1)

-

-

T1N2M0

0 (0.0)

3 (1.2)

-

-

T2N2M0

0 (0.0)

2 (0.8)

-

-

T3N2M0

0 (0.0)

2 (0.8)

-

-

T4N2M0

0 (0.0)

1 (0.4)

-

-

  1. The table also identifies the number of patients with underestimated tumour size and missed nodal disease