ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Integrative approach for enhanced ovarian cancer diagnosis: cytology and biomarkers.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluates the diagnostic value of routine cytology and liquid-based cytology (LBC) in detecting malignant cells in ovarian cancer-associated serous effusions and explores the clinical significance of CA125 and CA153 in single and combined serum biomarker testing.
methodsSerous effusion samples (ascites: n= 104, pleural effusions: n= 11) from 115 confirmed ovarian cancer patients underwent routine cytology and LBC,with positivity rates compared. Serum CA125 and CA153 were analyzed in 108 patients, assessing their correlation with cytology results. Cytology positivity was defined as the presence of malignant cells, regardless of clustering. Clusters of ≥3 malignant cells were also recorded for morphological analysis. Serum CA125 > 35 U/mL and CA153 > 25 U/mL were considered positive. McNemar's test evaluated the diagnostic performance of biomarkers alone and in combination, while Spearman's correlation assessed the relationship between malignant cell count and serum CA125/CA153 levels.
resultsThe positivity rates for routine cytology and LBC were 72.17% (83/115) and 66.96% (62/92), respectively (P > 0.05). CA125 positivity (93.51%, 101/108) was significantly higher than CA153 (64.35%, 66/101), P < 0.01. CA125 + CA153 combined testing improved sensitivity to 96.30% (P < 0.05). Malignant cell count correlated poorly with serum CA125 (r = 0.210, P > 0.05). Bacterial (n = 2) and fungal (n = 1) pathogens were identified in cytological analysis alongside significant morphological heterogeneity of malignant cells.
conclusionRoutine cytology effectively detects malignant cells in ovarian cancer serous effusions, while CA125 shows high sensitivity but limited standalone diagnostic value. LBC offers no additional advantage. CA125/CA153 combined testing significantly enhances diagnostic accuracy, particularly in advanced cases.
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.