ReviewDer Pathologe2019
[Pitfalls and common problems in the differential diagnosis of epithelial ovarian tumors].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epithelial ovarian tumors may cause various diagnostic problems of practical relevance. For the distinction between cystadenomas and borderline tumors/atypically proliferative tumors, a minimum extent of 10% of the atypical epithelial proliferation has been suggested by the WHO. The micropapillary variant of serous borderline tumors is more frequently associated with invasive growth and extraovarian lesions. Extraovarian lesions of borderline tumors are relevant for prognosis and cause a higher stage; their classification is crucial. Traditionally, they were classified into noninvasive and invasive implants based on their morphology. Based on the 2014 WHO classification, invasive lesions should be designated as low-grade serous carcinomas whereas only noninvasive lesions are considered implants. The most frequent invasive growth pattern in low-grade serous carcinomas consists of haphazardly arranged tumor cell nests and small papillae in clefts, whereas mucinous and endometrioid carcinomas mainly show a confluent glandular pattern with maze-like and cribriform structures. For metastatic mucinous tumors a nodular growth pattern is characteristic; ruling them out requires clinical information including imaging and immunohistochemistry. Differential diagnosis between low-grade and high-grade serous carcinoma is based on the degree of nuclear polymorphism and mitotic count. The seromucinous tumor category replaces the endocervical subtype of mucinous tumors and resembles histologically, biologically, and on the molecular level serous and endometrioid tumors. Endometrioid tumors with fibromatous stroma need to be distinguished from tumors with Sertoli cell differentiation and well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. For differential diagnosis of epithelial ovarian tumors, in particular carcinomas, a panel of antibodies for immunohistochemistry is very useful under consideration of histomorphology.
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.