ArticleBMC cancer2021
Can addition of frozen section analysis to preoperative endometrial biopsy and MRI improve identification of high-risk endometrial cancer patients?
Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative risk stratification in endometrial carcinoma: a pragmatic, complementary nomogram using readily available clinical variables.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Frozen Section Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgeons sometimes have difficulty determining which result to favor when preoperative results (MRI + preoperative endometrial biopsy [pre-op EB]) differ from intraoperative frozen section histology (FS) results. Investigation of how FS can complement ordinary preoperative examinations like MRI and pre-op EB in identification of patients at high risk of lymph node metastasis (high-risk patients) could provide clarity on this issue. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the utility of pre-op EB, MRI and FS results and determine how to combine these results in identification of high-risk patients.
methodsThe subjects were 172 patients with endometrial cancer. Patients with a histological high-grade tumor (HGT), namely, grade 3 endometrioid cancer, clear cell carcinoma or serous cell carcinoma, or with any type of cancer invading at least half of the uterine myometrium were considered high-risk. Tumors invading at least half of the uterine myometrium were classified as high-stage tumors (HST). We compared (a) detection of HGT using pre-op EB versus FS, (b) detection of HST using MRI versus FS, and (c) identification of high-risk patients using MRI + pre-op EB versus FS. Lastly, we determined to what degree addition of FS results improves identification of high-risk patients by routine MRI + pre-op EB.
results(a) Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for detecting HGT were 59.6, 98.4 and 87.8% for pre-op EB versus 55.3, 99.2 and 87.2% for FS (P = 0.44). (b) These figures for detecting HST were 74.4, 83.0 and 80.8% for MRI versus 46.5, 99.2 and 86.0% for FS (P < 0.001). (c) These figures for identifying high-risk patients were 78.3, 85.4 and 82.6% for MRI + pre-op EB versus 55.1, 99.0 and 81.2% for FS (P < 0.001). The high specificity of FS improved the sensitivity of MRI + pre-op EB from 78.3 to 81.2%, but this difference was not statistically significant (P < 0.16).
conclusionFrozen section enables identification of high-risk patients with nearly 100% specificity. This advantage can be used to improve sensitivity for identification of high-risk patients by routine MRI + pre-op EB, although this improvement is not statistically significant.
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.