作者投稿
专家审稿
编辑办公
邮件订阅
RSS
-
摘要:
肿瘤分期和淋巴结受累是局部晚期宫颈癌最重要的预后因素。对于宫颈癌, 妇科肿瘤医师普遍应用国际妇产科联盟(International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, FIGO)标准。然而目前FIGO 2018分期标准中, ⅢC期仅基于转移淋巴结的解剖位置, 并未考虑局部肿瘤因素及其他淋巴状态参数, 一定程度上限制了其预后意义。本文旨在总结ⅢC期宫颈癌局部肿瘤因素及不同淋巴状态参数对预后的影响以及治疗选择。
Abstract:Tumor stage and lymph node involvement are the most important prognostic factors for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. For cervical cancer, gynecologic oncologists generally apply the criteria of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics(FIGO). However, in the current FIGO 2018 staging system, stage ⅢC is based only on the anatomical location of metastatic lymph nodes, without considering local tumor factors and other lymphatic status parameters, which limits its prognostic significance to a certain extent. The aim of this article is to summarize the influence of local tumor factors and different lymphatic status parameters on prognosis and treatment options for stage ⅢC cervical cancer.
-
经过一天烈日的炙烤，住院部外面的地表温度已经高达40 ℃，进进出出需要加强监护的患者还在不断增加，面对监护室内堆积如山的病患，大家的心情已经烦躁不安。高速周转的病房似乎又经历了一波“大洗牌”，病床上躺着不同的面孔，交班正仔细且有序地进行着。“号外……又有新病人要从急诊科转入，目前鼻导管10 L/min吸氧中，呼吸困难，需要重新评估插管指征......”值班护士小罗一边接听着电话，一边冲大家喊道。此刻空气仿佛凝住了一般，最尴尬的事情莫过如此——在交班时要来病人。“大家先交班，速战速决，准备收病人......”作为今天当值的高年资主治医师，我立刻说道。
伴随着转运车的声音，病人送来了，大家立刻围了上去，按照平时标准动作过床、吸氧、完成心电监护连接。我走到病床边，那是一位白发苍苍、胸前皮下还隐约有一枚“勋章”的爷爷，一看心电监护，我本能地反应那枚东西应该是心脏永久起搏器。为了判断病人意识及症状，我拍了拍老人肩膀，问道：“爷爷，您知道这是在哪儿吗？”老人没有回答，但是眼睛在不停地转动，嘴巴似乎要表达什么，带着一点儿北方口音，但听得不太清楚。我瞬时像明白了什么，于是俯下身去对着他的耳朵大声喊道：“爷爷，您知道这是在哪儿吗？您是不是听得不太清楚？”老人摇了摇头，又点了点头。
此时，我身旁一位经验丰富的“老医生”冲我扬了扬手中的听诊器听筒，我第一反应是她要听诊，于是连忙说道：“我来吧。”但她却直接把听头给爷爷戴上了，并对着听筒大声说道：“老爷子，这样能听清吗？”老人喃喃地回答：“听清了，听清了……”慢慢地，他紧崩的神情似乎也逐渐舒展开来。经过一系列问诊和针对性的处理后，爷爷慢慢睡着了。
病人急性呼吸窘迫的病因尚未完全明确，依然有病情随时加重的危险，依照惯例，我们立即联系家属了解老人的病史并进行谈话签字。通过与家属充分沟通，我们了解到了爷爷的慢性病史以及本次发病的诱因，还得知爷爷听力不好，这几天辗转各大医院，一直没休息好，病情也越来越重了。好在经过我们悉心的治疗和照顾，两周后爷爷终于出院了！
门诊复诊时，我看到爷爷耳朵上多了一副助听器，便打趣道：“爷爷，现在声音清楚多了吧？”爷爷笑着回答：“这玩意儿还是没有你们给我戴的东西听得清楚。”我和家属听完都哈哈大笑起来……
后记
听诊器的发明已有近200年的历史，其除了可以帮助医生完成重要的听诊检查外，在某些情况下还可以成为与病人沟通的桥梁。从法国医生雷奈克为了诊治患者，第一次提出“听诊器”的概念，到吴孟超院士在冬天查房时先用双手捂热听诊器再为患者听诊，再到为了能让患者听清楚，发现听诊器的新用途……不同听诊器的故事中，有不同的主人公以及不同的场景，但伴随的都是那份来自医生的爱，那份给予患者温暖的爱。病人与医生之间的第一步，是沟通，是了解，但病人在任何时候和任何状态下，都一定是需要帮助的那个人。任何人在面对身体的病痛时，或是因为没有足够专业的知识，或是因为疾病带来的切肤之痛，无论是酸胀、麻木、疼痛、无力，还是其他任何一种异样的感觉，都会让其内心产生对于异常表现的无限猜测以及随之而来的焦虑、恐慌。初入医学院时的我，心里想的只是如何掌握高精尖的各种医学技术，如何把病看好。进入医院工作多年以后，特别是在经历新型冠状病毒感染疫情后，我深切地体会到，不管医生的技术有多精湛，医疗水平有多高超，医生的关怀和援助永远都是病人最坚实的情感堡垒。治病一定是依靠科学，但让病人感觉到舒服却更需要医生对于患者那颗帮助的心。从医和患这层关系构建起来的那一刻起，他们就不该是对立的，而是共生的，更是共情的，感同身受、同气连枝才是医治疾病的起点，更是每一个合格医生毕生追求的终点。
临床医生正如其名字一样，需要站在床边仔细观察病人。观察的目的除正确诊断病情外，更重要的是察觉病人最需要的帮助是什么。故事中的老人一直处于听不清周围声音的状态，这时候病人可能会感到恐惧与烦躁，甚至会导致病情恶化，而一次仔细的观察就能够使问题迎刃而解。一个小小的听诊器，以及听诊器带来的这份“逆向思维”，彰显的不仅是一种临床采集病史的技巧，更是医生把心打开，试图去侧耳倾听病人诉说的耐心，以及尽其所能去关爱病人的慈悲。
因此，听诊器的故事，讲述的不是一种疾病的诊断，更不是一个病例的转归，听诊器联通的亦非症状与诊断，心跳与鼓膜，而是受伤的心和呵护的手，告诉我你哪里不舒服，我一定会想办法听到你的诉说，也一定会陪着你直到疾病消散。把痛苦告诉我，把希望传给你，这才是听诊器的真正意义所在，才是医生和病人最正确的相处方式。一如美国医生特鲁多对医生这个职业的经典描述——有时是治愈，常常是帮助，总是去安慰！
作者贡献：马杏负责检索文献、框架设计和论文初稿撰写；刘畅负责指导论文写作、修订及终稿审核。利益冲突：所有作者均声明不存在利益冲突 -
[1] Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R L, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660
[2] Zou Z R, Fairley C K, Ong J J, et al. Domestic HPV vaccine price and economic returns for cervical cancer prevention in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis[J]. Lancet Glob Health, 2020, 8(10): e1335-e1344. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30277-1
[3] Wright J D, Matsuo K, Huang Y M, et al. Prognostic performance of the 2018 international federation of gynecology and obstetrics cervical cancer staging guidelines[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2019, 134(1): 49-57. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003311
[4] Long X T, He M S, Yang L L, et al. Validation of the 2018 FIGO staging system for predicting the prognosis of patients with stage ⅢC cervical cancer[J]. Clin Med Insights Oncol, 2023, 17: 11795549221146652. DOI: 10.1177/11795549221146652
[5] 刘萍, 黎志强, 柳攀, 等. FIGO 2018子宫颈癌分期Ⅲ期各亚期设置合理性探讨[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2021, 37(6): 669-672. Liu P, Li Z Q, Liu P, et al. Rationality of stage Ⅲ substaging in FIGO 2018 staging of cervical cancer[J]. Chin J Pract Gynecol Obstet, 2021, 37(6): 669-672.
[6] Van Kol K G G, Ebisch R M F, Van Der Aa M, et al. The prognostic value of the presence of pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients; the influence of the new FIGO classification (stage ⅢC)[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2023, 171: 9-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.01.023
[7] Zhang Y, Wang C H, Zhao Z Y, et al. Survival outcomes of 2018 FIGO stage ⅢC versus stages ⅢA and ⅢB in cervical cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2024, 165(3): 959-968. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15218
[8] Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum R S, et al. Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2019, 152(1): 87-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.026
[9] Grigsby P W, Massad L S, Mutch D G, et al. FIGO 2018 staging criteria for cervical cancer: Impact on stage migration and survival[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2020, 157(3): 639-643. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.03.027
[10] McComas K N, Torgeson A M, Ager B J, et al. The variable impact of positive lymph nodes in cervical cancer: Implications of the new FIGO staging system[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2020, 156(1): 85-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.10.025
[11] Ayhan A, Aslan K, Bulut A N, et al. Is the revised 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer more prognostic than the 2009 FIGO staging system for women previously staged as ⅠB disease?[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2019, 240: 209-214. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.002
[12] Pedone Anchora L, Carbone V, Gallotta V, et al. Should the number of metastatic pelvic lymph nodes be integrated into the 2018 FIGO staging classification of early stage cervical cancer?[J]. Cancers (Basel), 2020, 12(6): 1552. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12061552
[13] Duan H, Li H M, Kang S, et al. Rationality of FIGO 2018 ⅢC restaging of cervical cancer according to local tumor size: a cohort study[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2023, 102(8): 1045-1052. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14612
[14] Li Z Q, Duan H, Guo J X, et al. Discussion on the rationality of FIGO 2018 stage ⅢC for cervical cancer with oncological outcomes: a cohort study[J]. Ann Transl Med, 2022, 10(2): 122. DOI: 10.21037/atm-21-6374
[15] Soares L C, De Souza R J, Oliveira M A P. Reviewing FIGO 2018 cervical cancer staging[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2023, 102(12): 1757-1758. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14667
[16] Guo Q H, Zhu J, Wu Y, et al. Comparison of different lymph node staging systems in patients with node-positive cervical squamous cell carcinoma following radical surgery[J]. J Cancer, 2020, 11(24): 7339-7347. DOI: 10.7150/jca.48085
[17] Yan D D, Tang Q, Chen J H, et al. Prognostic value of the 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer patients with surgical risk factors[J]. Cancer Manag Res, 2019, 11: 5473-5480. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S203059
[18] Kwon J, Eom K Y, Kim Y S, et al. The prognostic impact of the number of metastatic lymph nodes and a new prognostic scoring system for recurrence in early-stage cervical cancer with high risk factors: a multicenter cohort study (KROG 15-04)[J]. Cancer Res Treat, 2018, 50(3): 964-974. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2017.346
[19] Olthof E P, Mom C H, Snijders M L H, et al. The prognostic value of the number of positive lymph nodes and the lymph node ratio in early-stage cervical cancer[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2022, 101(5): 550-557. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14316
[20] Yong J H, Ding B C, Dong Y Q, et al. Impact of examined lymph node number on lymph node status and prognosis in FIGO stage ⅠB-ⅡA cervical squamous cell carcinoma: a population-based study[J]. Front Oncol, 2022, 12: 994105. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.994105
[21] Guo Q H, Wu Y, Wen H, et al. Effect of the number of removed lymph nodes on survival in patients with FIGO stage ⅠB-ⅡA cervical squamous cell carcinoma following open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy: a retrospective cohort study[J]. J Oncol, 2021, 2021: 6201634.
[22] Fan X, Wang Y F, Yang N, et al. Prognostic analysis of patients with stage ⅢC1p cervical cancer treated by surgery[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2023, 21(1): 186. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03076-9
[23] Aslan K, Meydanli M M, Oz M, et al. The prognostic value of lymph node ratio in stage ⅢC cervical cancer patients triaged to primary treatment by radical hysterectomy with systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy[J]. J Gynecol Oncol, 2020, 31(1): e1. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e1
[24] Lee Y H, Chong G O, Kim S J, et al. Prognostic value of lymph node characteristics in patients with cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy[J]. Cancer Manag Res, 2021, 13: 8137-8145. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S332612
[25] Cui H X, Huang Y, Wen W B, et al. Prognostic value of lymph node ratio in cervical cancer: a meta-analysis[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2022, 101(42): e30745. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030745
[26] Qin F Y, Pang H T, Yu T, et al. Treatment strategies and prognostic factors of 2018 FIGO stage ⅢC cervical cancer: a review[J]. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2022, 21: 15330338221086403. DOI: 10.1177/15330338221086403
[27] Yi J Y, Liu Z L, Wang L, et al. Development and validation of novel nomograms to predict the overall survival and Cancer-Specific survival of cervical cancer patients with lymph node metastasis[J]. Front Oncol, 2022, 12: 857375. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.857375
[28] Halle M K, Bozickovic O, Forsse D, et al. Clinicopathological and radiological stratification within FIGO 2018 stages improves risk-prediction in cervical cancer[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2024, 181: 110-117. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.12.014
[29] Zeng J, Zuo J, Li N, et al. Clinical analysis of 312 patients with stage ⅠB1-ⅡA2 cervical squamous cell carcinoma and research on the influencing factors of postoperative recurrence[J]. BMC Womens Health, 2023, 23(1): 82. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02159-9
[30] Han K, Zou J F, Zhao Z, et al. Clinical validation of human papilloma virus circulating tumor DNA for early detection of residual disease after chemoradiation in cervical cancer[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2024, 42(4): 431-440. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00954
[31] Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2018, 28(4): 641-655. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001216
[32] Schmid M P, Lindegaard J C, Mahantshetty U, et al. Risk factors for local failure following chemoradiation and magnetic resonance image-guided brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: results from the EMBRACE-Ⅰ study[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2023, 41(10): 1933-1942. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.01096
[33] Gennigens C, De Cuypere M, Hermesse J, et al. Optimal treatment in locally advanced cervical cancer[J]. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 2021, 21(6): 657-671. DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2021.1879646
[34] Knoth J, Pötter R, Jürgenliemk-Schulz I M, et al. Clinical and imaging findings in cervical cancer and their impact on FIGO and TNM staging-an analysis from the EMBRACE study[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2020, 159(1): 136-141. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.07.007
[35] Zhu Y X, Shen B M, Pei X, et al. CT, MRI, and PET imaging features in cervical cancer staging and lymph node metastasis[J]. Am J Transl Res, 2021, 13(9): 10536-10544.
[36] Bizzarri N, Russo L, Dolciami M, et al. Radiomics systematic review in cervical cancer: gynecological oncologists' perspective[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2023, 33(10): 1522-1541. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004589
[37] Abu-Rustum N R, Yashar C M, Arend R, et al. NCCN guidelines® insights: cervical cancer, version 1.2024[J]. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2023, 21(12): 1224-1233. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0062
[38] Wenzel H H B, Olthof E P, Bekkers R L M, et al. Primary or adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer with intraoperative lymph node metastasis-a review[J]. Cancer Treat Rev, 2022, 102: 102311. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102311
[39] Huang H, Feng Y L, Wan T, et al. Effectiveness of sequential chemoradiation vs concurrent chemoradiation or radiation alone in adjuvant treatment after hysterectomy for cervical cancer: the STARS phase 3 randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA Oncol, 2021, 7(3): 361-369. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7168
[40] Soochit A, Zhang C Y, Feng Y L, et al. Impact of different post-operative treatment modalities on long-term outcomes in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage ⅢCp cervical cancer[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2023, 33(6): 882-889. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004234
[41] Kashima Y, Murakami K, Miyagawa C, et al. Treatment for locally resectable stage ⅢC1 cervical cancer: a retrospec-tive, single-institution study[J]. Healthcare (Basel), 2023, 11(5): 632.
[42] Kagabu M, Nagasawa T, Tatsuki S, et al. Comparison of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy for FIGO2018 stage ⅢC1 cervical cancer: a retrospective study[J]. Medicina (Kaunas), 2021, 57(6): 548. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57060548
[43] Zhong M L, Wang Y N, Liang M R, et al. Consolidation chemotherapy in early-stage cervical cancer patients with lymph node metastasis after radical hysterectomy[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2020, 30(5): 602-606. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000690
[44] Gadducci A, Cosio S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: review of the literature and perspectives of clinical research[J]. Anticancer Res, 2020, 40(9): 4819-4828. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14485
[45] Gupta S, Maheshwari A, Parab P, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery versus concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with stage ⅠB2, ⅡA, or ⅡB squamous cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2018, 36(16): 1548-1555. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.9985
[46] Hu Y J, Han Y Y, Shen Y M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with international federation of gynecology and obstetrics stages ⅠB3 and ⅡA2 cervical cancer: a multicenter prospective trial[J]. BMC Cancer, 2022, 22(1): 1270. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10355-3
[47] Ye Y N, Li Z Q, Kang S, et al. Treatment of FIGO 2018 stage ⅢC cervical cancer with different local tumor factors[J]. BMC Cancer, 2023, 23(1): 421. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-10801-w
[48] Liu X L, Wang W P, Hu K, et al. A risk stratification for patients with cervical cancer in stage ⅢC1 of the 2018 FIGO staging system[J]. Sci Rep, 2020, 10(1): 362. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-57202-3
[49] Olthof E P, Wenzel H, Van Der Velden J, et al. Treatment of bulky lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer: boosting versus debulking[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2022, 32(7): 861-868. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003357
[50] Díaz-Feijoó B, Acosta Ú, Torné A, et al. Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic pelvic lymph node debulking during staging aortic lymphadenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer: a multicenter study[J]. Cancers (Basel), 2022, 14(8): 1974. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14081974
[51] Marnitz S, Tsunoda A T, Martus P, et al. Surgical versus clinical staging prior to primary chemoradiation in patients with cervical cancer FIGO stages ⅡB-ⅣA: oncologic results of a prospective randomized international multicenter (Uterus-11) intergroup study[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2020, 30(12): 1855-1861. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001973
[52] He M S, Guo M F, Zhou Q, et al. Efficacy of lymph node dissection on stage ⅢCr of cervical cancer before CCRT: study protocol for a phase Ⅲ, randomized controlled clinical trial (CQGOG0103)[J]. J Gynecol Oncol, 2023, 34(3): e55. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e55
[53] Kenter G, Greggi S, Vergote I, et al. Results from neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery compared to chemoradiation for stage Ⅰb2-Ⅱb cervical cancer, EORTC 55994[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2019, 37(15_suppl): 5503. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.5503
[54] Lou J H, Zhang X X, Liu J J, et al. The prognostic value of radiological and pathological lymph node status in patients with cervical cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and followed hysterectomy[J]. Sci Rep, 2024, 14(1): 2045. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-49539-7
[55] Ramirez P T, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 379(20): 1895-1904. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395
[56] Qiu J J, Sun S G, Liu Q Q, et al. A comparison of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and radical surgery in patients with specific locally advanced cervical cancer (stage ⅠB3, ⅡA2, ⅢCr): trial protocol for a randomized controlled study (C-CRAL trial)[J]. J Gynecol Oncol, 2023, 34(5): e64. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e64
[57] Melamed A, Margul D J, Chen L, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 379(20): 1905-1914. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804923
[58] Fusegi A, Kanao H, Tsumura S, et al. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer: a narrative review[J]. J Gynecol Oncol, 2023, 34(1): e5. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e5
[59] Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, et al. SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage ⅠB1 cervical cancer[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2020, 30(9): 1269-1277. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506
[60] Salvo G, Ramirez P T, Leitao M M, et al. Open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: international radical trachelectomy assess-ment study[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2022, 226(1): 97. e1-e97. e16. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.08.029
[61] Wang R M, Hu Y Y, Xia H X, et al. Does the use of a uterine manipulator or intracorporeal colpotomy confer an inferior prognosis in minimally invasive surgery-treated early-stage cervical cancer?[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2023, 30(2): 156-163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.11.009
计量
- 文章访问数: 408
- HTML全文浏览量: 48
- PDF下载量: 37
下载:
