ReviewPathology oncology research : POR2025
How to differentiate primary mucinous ovarian tumors from ovarian metastases originating from primary appendiceal mucinous neoplasms: a review.
Review in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic significance of cancer antigen 125/carcinoembryonic antigen ratio combined with IOTA-ADNEX model in discriminating between primary ovarian cancer and ovarian metastases.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- MRI features of ovarian metastases from appendiceal tumors and primary ovarian mucinous carcinoma: a comparative study.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Metastatic appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma presenting as bilateral ovarian masses mimicking advanced ovarian cancer: a case report.Ewha medical journal · 2026Article
- High-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm: case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- High-volume mucinous ascites secondary to low-grade mucinous neoplasm arising in a mature cystic teratoma: a case report.AME case reports · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accurate distinction between primary and secondary mucinous ovarian cancers is a crucial tool for effective surgical and systematic treatment. Mucinous ovarian metastases of appendiceal origin are a special group of tumors because they appear even in half of female patients with primary appendiceal mucinous carcinomas and demonstrate pathological similarity to primary ovarian mucinous neoplasms. The current literature review focuses on the differences based on pre-operative symptoms, radiological findings, the spectrum of microscopic features, and the significance of the immunophenotype of each tumor. Treatment options, including surgical management and adjuvant chemotherapy protocols, are also briefly overviewed. In conclusion, the source of the ovarian tumor mass might be suggested by preoperative symptoms, values of antigens, and imaging findings. However, the confirmation of the tumor origin is only made after the postoperative pathological examination. Investigating the most accurate immunohistochemical markers and new molecular features may improve diagnostic efficiency in future research.
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.