Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33706757›Full record

ReviewDiagnostic pathology2021

Primary mucinous ovarian tumors vs. ovarian metastases from gastrointestinal tract, pancreas and biliary tree: a review of current problematics.

Pavel Dundr, Naveena Singh, Barbora Nožičková, Kristýna Němejcová, Michaela Bártů, Ivana Stružinská

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostic pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Role ofInternational journal of women's health · 2025
    Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Pavel DundrInstitute of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Studničkova 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic. pavel.dundr@vfn.cz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8940-6124
Naveena SinghDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Barbora NožičkováInstitute of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Studničkova 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic.
Kristýna NěmejcováInstitute of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Studničkova 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic.
Michaela BártůInstitute of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Studničkova 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic.
Ivana StružinskáInstitute of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Studničkova 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic.

Funding

European Regional Development Fund BBMRI_CZ LM2018125European Regional Development Fund CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/18_046/0015959Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky AZV NV19-03-00007Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky Conceptual development of research organization 64165, General University Hospital in PragueUniverzita Karlova v Praze Progress Q28/LF1Univerzita Karlova v Praze SVV260367Univerzita Karlova v Praze UNCE204065
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaking the distinction between primary mucinous and metastatic ovarian tumors is often difficult, especially in tumors with a primary source from the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas and biliary tree. The aim of the following paper is to provide an overview of the problematics, with a focus on the possibilities of the differential diagnosis at the macroscopic, microscopic and immunohistochemical level. MAIN BODY: The three main aspects of mucinous ovarian tumors are described in detail, including the comparison of the available diagnostic algorithms based on the evaluation of mostly macroscopic features, characterization of the spectrum of microscopic features, and a detailed analysis of the immunophenotype comparing 20 antibodies with the assessment of their statistical significance for differential diagnosis purposes. Specific features, including Krukenberg tumor and pseudomyxoma peritonei, are also discussed.

conclusionDespite the growing knowledge of the macroscopic and microscopic features of ovarian mucinous tumors and the availability of a wide range of immunohistochemical antibodies useful in this setting, there still remains a group of tumors which cannot be precisely classified without close clinical-pathological cooperation.

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma, MucinousFemaleGastrointestinal TractHumansOvarian NeoplasmsPancreasPeritoneal NeoplasmsPseudomyxoma PeritoneiMucinous borderline tumorMucinous carcinomaOvarian metastasesOvarian tumors

Identifiers

PMID33706757
PMCPMC7953678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.