Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33539545›Full record

SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2021

Frozen section diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors with suspicious features of invasive cancer is a devil's dilemma for the surgeon: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Koen De Decker, Karina H Jaroch, Mireille A Edens, Joost Bart, Loes F S Kooreman, Roy F P M Kruitwagen, Hans W Nijman, Arnold-Jan Kruse

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Koen De DeckerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2430-6501
Karina H JarochUniversity of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Mireille A EdensDepartment of Innovation and Science, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Joost BartDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Loes F S KooremanDepartment of Pathology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Roy F P M KruitwagenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Hans W NijmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Arnold-Jan KruseDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLIsala · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFrozen section diagnoses of borderline ovarian tumors are not always straightforward and a borderline frozen section diagnosis with suspicious features of invasive carcinoma (reported as "at least borderline" or synonymous descriptions) presents us with the dilemma of whether or not to perform a full surgical staging procedure. By performing a systematic review and meta-analysis, the prevalence of straightforward borderline and "at least borderline" frozen section diagnoses, as well as proportion of patients with a final diagnosis of invasive carcinoma in these cases, were assessed and compared, as quantification of this dilemma may help us with the issue of this clinical decision. MATERIAL AND

methodsPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were searched and studies discussing "at least borderline" frozen section diagnoses were included in the review. Numbers of specific frozen section diagnoses and subsequent final histological diagnoses were extracted and pooled analysis was performed to compare the proportion of patients diagnosed with invasive carcinoma following borderline and "at least borderline" frozen section diagnoses, presented as risk ratio and risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

resultsOf 4940 screened records, eight studies were considered eligible for quantitative analysis. A total of 921 women was identified and 230 (25.0%) of these women were diagnosed with "at least borderline" ovarian tumor at the time of frozen section. Final histological diagnoses were reported in five studies, including 61 women with an "at least borderline" diagnosis and 290 women with a straightforward borderline frozen section diagnosis. Twenty-five of 61 women (41.0%) of the "at least borderline" group had invasive cancer at final diagnosis, compared with 28 of 290 women (9.7%) of the straightforward borderline frozen section group (risk difference -0.34, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.15; relative risk 0.25, 95% CI 0.13-0.50).

conclusionsWomen diagnosed with "at least borderline" frozen section diagnoses were found to have a higher chance of carcinoma upon final diagnosis when compared with women with a straightforward borderline frozen section diagnosis (41.0% vs 9.7%). Especially in the serous subtype, and after preoperative consent, full staging during initial surgery might be considered in these cases to prevent a second surgical procedure.

Indexed as

Frozen SectionsFemaleHumansNeoplasm InvasivenessOvarian Neoplasmsborderline tumors of the ovaryfrozen sectionoperative surgical procedureovarian cancerovarian neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID33539545
PMCPMC8359269
OpenAlexW3126783693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.