ArticleJournal of ovarian research2026
Ascitic fluid cell block with immunocytochemistry for the diagnosis of advanced tubo-ovarian cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferentiating advanced tubo-ovarian cancer from other malignancies in patients presenting with ascites and pelvic masses remains a critical clinical challenge. While liquid-based cytology (LBC) and serum tumor markers such as CA125 and CEA are commonly used, their diagnostic accuracy is limited. Ascitic fluid cell block (ACB) combined with immunocytochemistry (ICC) has emerged as a promising alternative, yet its comparative performance against conventional approaches—including LBC and the CA125/CEA ratio—has not been systematically evaluated in large cohorts.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we compared the diagnostic performance of four strategies: LBC alone, a CA125/CEA ratio > 25, LBC combined with CA125/CEA ratio > 25, and ACB combined with ICC. All methods were evaluated against histopathological findings from surgical or biopsy specimens as the reference standard. Analyses included patients with confirmed malignant ascites; a subset with complete ascitic fluid testing data was used for the primary evaluation of ACB combined with ICC.
resultsACB combined with ICC demonstrated almost perfect agreement with histopathology (Cohen’s κ = 0.90). This method achieved 100% sensitivity, 81.8% specificity, a 99.2% positive predictive value, a 100% negative predictive value, and an overall diagnostic accuracy of 99.2%. Receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed that ACB combined with ICC had significantly superior discriminative ability compared to all other evaluated methods (all P < 0.001).
conclusionACB combined with ICC shows near-perfect concordance with histopathological diagnosis (HIS) and exceptional diagnostic accuracy for identifying tubo-ovarian carcinoma. These results support its role as a reliable pre-treatment diagnostic tool, particularly in clinical scenarios where tissue confirmation is delayed or contraindicated, and when timely decisions regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy are required.
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.