ArticleSarcoma2021
Role of Intraoperative Pathology Consultation by Imprint and Scrape Cytology in Soft Tissue Tumors and Tumor-Like Lesions.
Article in Sarcoma, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intraoperative pathologic consultation plays an essential role in therapeutic decision making, possibly avoiding under or overtreatment of the patient. Common indications for intraoperative consultation include obtaining a diagnosis in an unknown pathology, ruling out malignancy, confirming a provisional diagnosis, and assessing margin status. Fifty patients undergoing surgery for soft tissue tumors or tumor-like lesions were included in the present prospective study to evaluate the role of intraoperative pathologic consultation by imprint and scrape cytology. Careful and quick gross examination of the specimen was performed, followed by processing for imprint and scrape smears. The prepared smears were evaluated by three pathologists and the cytological diagnosis compared subsequently with final histopathological diagnosis. Intraoperative consultation was primarily requested to make or confirm preoperative diagnosis. In 44.0% cases, no previous tissue/cytological diagnosis was available. In 56.0% cases, previous pathological diagnosis was available, but the reports were inconclusive or were reported from outside our institute. The diagnostic yield of imprint smears was 24% (5 malignant, 6 benign, and 1 inconclusive), and scrape smears was 100% (10 malignant, 38 benign, and 2 inconclusive). Paraffin-embedded sections yielded diagnosis in 100% cases (11 malignant, 38 benign, and 1 nonneoplastic). Imprint smears alone were not of much help in intraoperative diagnosis. Scrape smears were found to be superior to imprint smears in terms of diagnostic yield and accuracy. Combined imprint and scrape smear cytology did not provide any advantage in intraoperative provisional tissue diagnosis in soft tissue tumors.
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.