ArticleHead and neck pathology2026
Discrepancies with Final Diagnosis in Head and Neck Intraoperative Frozen Section.
Article in Head and neck pathology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCreating a frozen section slide and crafting an interpretation is a multistep process with multiple possible points of failure. Head and neck frozen section pathology presents particular technical and diagnostic challenges. The aim of our study was to identify discrepancies between head/neck intraoperative and final diagnoses, determine the site of process failure, and assess the potential causes.
methodsConcordance data from head and neck intraoperative and final diagnoses (2020-2023) were queried from our LIS-embedded quality assurance system. Discrepancies were categorized as major and minor, with major defined as those that would have altered the surgical procedure.
resultsWe found 71 total discrepancies out of 1844 head and neck cases (3.9%). Major discrepancies accounted for 48/1844 (2.7%). Only major errors were considered for further study and were classified primarily into three categories: (1) inadequate gross sampling by the prosector, usually involving mucosal tissues of excised large specimens for evaluation of margins for dysplasia/carcinoma (14/48 cases; 29%), (2) insufficient sectioning into the block leaving undetected tissue unexamined (9/48 cases; 19%), and (3) interpretative errors (23/48 cases; 48%). The most common major interpretative errors involved the diagnosis of squamous dysplasia (9 cases), failure to identify minimally invasive squamous carcinoma (4 cases), failure to identify parathyroid and thyroid tissues (5 cases), and incorrect diagnoses of non-squamous neoplasms (5 cases). Two errors (4%) were ascribed to processing artifact issues in the frozen section.
conclusionHalf of diagnostic discrepancies occurred at steps prior to microscopic interpretation. Management of specimen grossing and tissue selection in large specimens, adequate block sectioning, and adherence to diagnostic criteria for difficult but common issues such as squamous dysplasia, minimally invasive carcinoma and thyroid/parathyroid morphology may help reduce intraoperative/final diagnosis discrepancies.
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.