ArticleCancer science2024
Histological diagnostic discrepancy and its clinical impact in bone and soft tissue tumors referred to a sarcoma center.
Article in Cancer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nano-RAPID: Integrated Diagnosis for Sarcoma Using a Nanopore Sequencer.Genes, chromosomes & cancer · 2026Article
- Multimodal AI fusion: integrating MRI with PET/CT, histopathology, and liquid biopsy for bone tumor diagnosis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Histological diagnostic discrepancy and its clinical impact in bone and soft tissue tumors referred to a sarcoma center.Cancer science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Histological diagnosis of sarcomas (malignant bone and soft tissue tumors) is challenging due to their rarity, morphological diversity, and constantly evolving diagnostic criteria. In this study, we aimed to assess the concordance in histological diagnosis of bone and soft tissue tumors between referring hospitals and a tertiary sarcoma center and analyzed the clinical impact of the diagnostic alteration. We analyzed 628 consecutively accessioned specimens from 624 patients who visited a specialized sarcoma center for treatment. The diagnoses at referring hospitals and those at the sarcoma center were compared and classified into four categories: agreed, disagreed, specified, and de-specified. Of the 628 specimens, the diagnoses agreed in 403 (64.2%) specimens, whereas some changes were made in 225 (35.8%) specimens: disagreed in 153 (24.3%), specified in 52 (8.3%), and de-specified in 20 (3.2%) cases. The benign/intermediate/malignant judgment changed for 92 cases (14.6%). The diagnostic change resulted in patient management modification in 91 cases (14.5%), including surgical and medical treatment changes. The main inferred reason for the diagnostic discrepancies was a different interpretation of morphological findings of the tumor, which accounted for 48.9% of the cases. This was followed by the unavailability of specialized immunohistochemical antibodies and the unavailability of genetic analysis. In summary, our study clarified the actual clinical impact of diagnostic discrepancy in bone and soft tissue tumors. This may underscore the value of pathology consultation, facilitating access to specialized diagnostic tools, and continued education. These measures are expected to improve diagnostic precision and ultimately benefit patients.
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.