ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2016
A case of mesothelioma masquerading pre-operatively as ovarian cancer and brief review of the literature.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma mimicking ovarian cancer.Radiology case reports · 2022Article
- Primary Ovarian Mesothelioma: A Case Series with Electron Microscopy Examination and Review of the Literature.Cancers · 2021Article
- Geographic Co-Occurrence of Mesothelioma and Ovarian Cancer Incidence.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) can masquerade as an ovarian epithelial neoplasm, with very similar presenting clinical symptoms and imaging findings. The gold standard in differentiating between these two diagnoses lies in tissue pathology. CASE REPORT: This is a case of MPM that was initially misdiagnosed as ovarian cancer based on family history, imaging, and surgical findings. Tissue diagnosis preoperatively would have changed the planned procedure. Retrospectively, after the diagnosis of MPM, the patient was found to have had an indirect exposure to asbestos through her father.
conclusionsThis case highlights the importance of keeping a broad differential when diagnosing ovarian malignancies, collecting both family and social histories (including screening for exposure to asbestos), and the benefit of obtaining tissue diagnosis when MPM is suspected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.