ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025
Concordance of intraoperative cytology with frozen section and final pathology for ovarian neoplasms.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2025. 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.
- Intraoperative cytologic evaluation for ovarian tumors : Utility in low resource settings and a roadmap for adoption.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Review
- Laser capture microdissection.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Intraoperative frozen section analysis (IOFS) is a widely used method for evaluating ovarian masses and guiding surgical decisions. However, IOFS is not always accessible in low-resource settings. Recent research suggests that intraoperative cytology (IOC) may offer a quicker, less equipment-dependent alternative. This study aims to compare IOC and IOFS in women with ovarian neoplasms. The pathologists interpreting IOC were blinded to IOFS findings. Methods: The study included 15 women aged 18 or older undergoing surgery for ovarian mass removal. Patients with biopsy-confirmed malignancies or known recurrences were excluded. After tumor removal, both IOFS and IOC were performed. IOFS involved using a Cryostat for sectioning and H&E staining. IOC used touch/imprint, scrape, and crush techniques. Independent pathologists analyzed the smears, and paraffin-embedded tissue histopathology was the diagnostic gold standard. Results: IOC results were consistent with final pathology in 10 of 15 cases, while IOFS matched in 12 cases. IOC had 4 indeterminate and 1 borderline diagnosis, compared to 1 indeterminate, 1 benign, and 1 borderline diagnosis with IOFS. Three discrepancies between IOC and IOFS were identified, with IOC providing indeterminate results where IOFS ranged from benign to malignant. Indeterminate cases led to malignancy management strategies, including intraoperative staging. Conclusion: This pilot study indicates that intraoperative cytology is a practical and effective method for rapid ovarian neoplasm evaluation. Further research with larger cohorts is needed to assess its comparative performance with frozen section analysis and optimize its methodology. IOC may offer a viable option for intraoperative surgical guidance.
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.