Andrea Burgetová

Dr. Andrea Burgetová

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 March 2013 in Gynecologic Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EEElisabeth Epstein
Elisabeth Epstein
ATAntonia Testa
Antonia Testa
AGAdrius Gaurilcikas
Adrius Gaurilcikas
ALAlessia Di Legge
Alessia Di Legge
LALiveke Ameye
Liveke Ameye
DFDaniela Fischerova
Daniela Fischerova

1 July 2014 in Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DFDaniela Fischerova
Daniela Fischerova
ABAndrea Burgetová
Andrea Burgetová

30 January 2020 in BioMed Research International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TIT Indrielle-Kelly
T Indrielle-Kelly
FFF Frühauf
F Frühauf
MFM Fanta
M Fanta
ABAndrea Burgetová
Andrea Burgetová
DLD Lavu
D Lavu
DFDaniela Fischerova
Daniela Fischerova
Objectives. The primary aim was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the mapping of deep pelvic endometriosis (DE) in a diseased population. The secondary aim was to offer first insights into the clinical applicability of the new International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group (IDEA) consensus for sonographic evaluation, which was also adapted for MRI and surgical reporting in this study. Methods. The study was a prospective observational cohort study. In this study, consecutive women planned for surgical treatment for DE underwent preoperative mapping of pelvic disease using TVS and MRI (index tests). The results were compared against the intraoperative findings with histopathological confirmation (reference standard). In case of disagreement between intraoperative and pathology findings, the latter was prioritised. Index tests and surgical findings were reported using a standardised protocol based on the IDEA consensus. Results. The study ran from 07/2016 to 02/2018. One‐hundred and eleven women were approached, but 60 declined participation. Out of the 51 initially recruited women, two were excluded due to the missing reference standard. Both methods (TVS and MRI) had the same sensitivity and specificity in the detection of DE in the upper rectum (UpR) and rectosigmoid (RS) (UpR TVS and MRI sensitivity and specificity 100%; RS TVS and MRI sensitivity 94%; TVS and MRI specificity 84%). In the assessment of DE in the bladder (Bl), uterosacral ligaments (USL), vagina (V), rectovaginal septum (RVS), and overall pelvis (P), TVS had marginally higher specificity but lower sensitivity than MRI (Bl TVS sensitivity 89%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 100%, specificity 95%; USL TVS sensitivity 74%, specificity 67%, MRI sensitivity 94%, specificity 60%; V TVS sensitivity 55%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 73%, specificity 95%; RVS TVS sensitivity 67%, specificity 100%, MRI sensitivity 83%, specificity 93%; P TVS sensitivity 78%, specificity 97%, MRI sensitivity 91%, specificity 91%). No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between TVS and MRI were observed except USL assessment (p = 0.04) where MRI was significantly better and pouch of Douglas obliteration (p = 0.04) where TVS was significantly better. Overall, there was a good agreement between reference standards and both index tests (TVS kappa value (κ) = 0.727 [p ≤ 0.001), MRI κ = 0.755 [p = p ≤ 0.001]). Conclusion. We found that both imaging techniques had overall good agreement with the reference standard in the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis. This is the first study to date involving the IDEA consensus for ultrasound, its modified version for MRI, and intraoperative reporting of deep pelvic endometriosis in clinical practice.

14 February 2024 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DFDaniela Fischerova
Daniela Fischerova
FFFilip Frühauf
Filip Frühauf
ABAndrea Burgetová
Andrea Burgetová
IHIngfrid Salvesen Haldorsen
Ingfrid Salvesen Haldorsen
EGElena Gatti
Elena Gatti
DCDavid Cibula
David Cibula
Following the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) joint guidelines (2018) for the management of patients with cervical cancer, treatment decisions should be guided by modern imaging techniques. After five years (2023), an update of the ESGO-ESTRO-ESP recommendations was performed, further confirming this statement. Transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound (TRS/TVS) or pelvic magnetic resonance (MRI) enables tumor delineation and precise assessment of its local extent, including the evaluation of the depth of infiltration in the bladder- or rectal wall. Additionally, both techniques have very high specificity to confirm the presence of metastatic pelvic lymph nodes but fail to exclude them due to insufficient sensitivity to detect small-volume metastases, as in any other currently available imaging modality. In early-stage disease (T1a to T2a1, except T1b3) with negative lymph nodes on TVS/TRS or MRI, surgicopathological staging should be performed. In all other situations, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) or 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with CT (PET-CT) is recommended to assess extrapelvic spread. This paper aims to review the evidence supporting the implementation of diagnostic imaging with a focus on ultrasound at primary diagnostic workup of cervical cancer.

1 September 2021 in Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RBRomana Burgetova
Romana Burgetova
PDPetr Dusek
Petr Dusek
ABAndrea Burgetová
Andrea Burgetová
APAdam Pudlac
Adam Pudlac
MVManuela Vaneckova
Manuela Vaneckova
LLLukas Lambert
Lukas Lambert
Age-related magnetic susceptibility changes in deep grey matter and cerebral cortex of normal young and middle-aged adults depicted by whole brain analysis Romana Burgetova, Petr Dusek, Andrea Burgetova, Adam Pudlac, Manuela Vaneckova, Dana Horakova, Jan Krasensky, Zsoka Varga, Lukas Lambert

19 April 2021 in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DFDaniela Fischerova
Daniela Fischerova
PPPatrícia Pinto
Patrícia Pinto
ABAndrea Burgetová
Andrea Burgetová
MMM. Masek
M. Masek
JSJiri Slama
Jiri Slama
DCDavid Cibula
David Cibula