Accuracy of intraoperative frozen section analysis in borderline tumors of the ovary: A retrospective analysis of 96 cases and review of the literature
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. Gynecologic Oncology
(Impact Factor: 3.77).
12/2007; 107(2):248-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.06.008
To assess the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of intraoperative frozen section diagnosis of borderline tumors of the ovary (BTO).
Retrospective analysis at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Vienna, between 1995 and 2007 and review of the literature. Frozen section analysis and definitive histology reports were compared. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to assess the influence of patient and tumor characteristics on the likelihood of underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis.
Agreement between frozen section diagnosis and definitive histology was observed in 69/96 (71.9%) patients, yielding an overall sensitivity and a positive predictive value of 75.0% and 94.5%, respectively. Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis occurred in 27/96 (28%) and 0/96 (0%) patients, respectively. In a univariate and multivariate analysis, tumor diameter, but not patient age, tumor histology, tumor stage, presence of a bilateral tumor, serum CA-125 and concurrent presence of endometriosis was a predictor of underdiagnosis of frozen section analysis. We identified 29 studies investigating the accuracy of frozen section analysis of BTO. Three studies exclusively examined BTO in 140, 48 and 33 cases, respectively. Data of these three studies and the present study were pooled, yielding an overall sensitivity and PPV of 71.1% and 84.3%, respectively. Overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis were identified in 21/317 (6.6%) and in 97/317 (30.6%) cases, respectively.
Intraoperative frozen section diagnosis of BTO has a low sensitivity and PPV and overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis are frequent. Surgical management based on intraoperative frozen section diagnosis should be used with caution.
Available from: Polat Dursun
- "The accuracy of frozen section diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors has been studied in multiple retrospective studies and accuracy rates have varied widely from 45 to 87%    . It has been shown that tumor size is an important factor in frozen section diagnosis  . Tumor size N15 cm may cause misdiagnosis. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To analyze the results of fertility-sparing treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) in patients treated at Turkish gynecologic oncology centers, and to present a review of the literature. METHODS: Thirteen healthcare centers in Turkey were contacted to determine if they were eligible to participate in the study. Centers that were eligible and agreed to participate were sent a database form to record the demographic characteristics, clinicopathologic findings, and follow-up results for their EC patients. RESULTS: Eleven Turkish healthcare centers provided data on 43 EC patients. Mean duration of treatment was 5months and mean follow-up was 49months. In total, 35 (81.4%) patients were tumor free following primary progesterone therapy. Mean time from the end of progesterone therapy to pregnancy was 10.6±4.3months (range, 3-18months). Two patients had tumor recurrence during follow-up. The pregnancy rate among the 31 women who actively sought pregnancy was 41.9% (n=13). CONCLUSION: Conservative management of early-stage EC in women of reproductive age using oral progestins was effective and did not compromise oncological outcome. Pregnancy in the study patients was achieved spontaneously and artificially.
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 08/2012; 119(3). DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.06.010 · 1.54 Impact Factor
Available from: Jolanta Kupryjańczyk
- "Clinically, the diagnostic challenge is not the differentiation between malignant and benign but rather that between borderline and malignant tumors. Sensitivity of intraoperative examination in the diagnosis of borderline tumors is 60–71 % [4, 23, 24]. Thus, it seems warranted to search for criteria, by applying the available methods that would be useful in the preoperative evaluation and diagnosis. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
In young patients with borderline tumors the fertility-sparing treatment is indicated, thus the preoperative investigation is important. The aim of this study was to perform a comparative assessment of sensitivity and specificity of selected ultrasonographic and clinical parameters for the diagnoses of borderline tumors and ovarian cancers.
We retrospectively analyzed 57 patients who underwent surgical treatment in the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center from Jan 01, 2008 to Dec 31, 2009. Ovarian cancers were diagnosed in 41 patients, and borderline ovarian tumors in 16 patients. Statistical model was developed to determine independent predictive factors that would be useful in preoperative differentiation between both tumors. The model included the following factors: menopausal status, tumor morphology, wall thickness (including outgrowths), septal thickness, echogenicity, resistive index, serum CA-125 level, and free fluid in the peritoneal cavity.
Based on the statistical model developed, independent predictive factors in the differentiation between ovarian cancers and borderline tumors included the menopausal status (P = 0.005), tumor echogenicity (P = 0.047) and the presence of free fluid in the Douglas pouch (P = 0.043). With the cutoff value of 13 (with scores below 13 indicating a borderline ovarian tumor, and scores of ≥13 indicating ovarian cancer), sensitivity was 90.2 % and specificity was 87 %.
Our proposed model of preoperative evaluation has a sensitivity of 90 % in the differentiation between ovarian cancers and borderline tumors. When combined with intraoperative findings, it allows optimal surgical therapeutic decisions to be made in patients with borderline ovarian tumors.
Archives of Gynecology 07/2012; 286(6). DOI:10.1007/s00404-012-2453-9 · 1.36 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.