OBJECTIVE: Frozen-section evaluation of ovarian tumors can be used to establish a histopathologic diagnosis and guide the surgeon to perform the appropriate surgical procedure. A retrospective study was conducted to determine the accuracy of frozen-section diagnosis of ovarian tumors. STUDY DESIGN: Frozen- and permanent-section diagnoses were divided into three categories (benign, borderline, and malignant). The sensitivity, specificity and predictive values, and 95% percent confidence intervals of each frozen-section diagnosis were determined. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-three ovarian tumors that underwent frozen-section evaluation between June 1983 and June 1993 were studied. The final histopathologic diagnosis was 61.1% benign, 7.6% borderline, and 31.3% malignant. Frozen section was accurate in 92.7% of all cases and inaccurate in 7.3%. The sensitivity for malignant tumors was 92.5% tumors (95% confidence intervals 87.7% to 97.2%), the sensitivity for borderline tumors was 44.8% (95% confidence interval 26.4% to 63.2%). The specificity for benign tumors was 92.0% (95% confidence interval 88.6% to 95.4%) but increased to 97.9% (95% confidence interval 96.1% to 99.7%) if borderline tumors were excluded. The positive predictive value and 95% confidence intervals were 92.0% (88.6% to 95.4%) for benign tumors, 65% (43.6% to 86.5%) for borderline tumors, and 99.1% (97.3% to 100.0%) for malignant tumors. Thirteen of 16 (81%) ovarian lymphomas and tumors metastatic to the ovary were correctly identified by intraoperative frozen section. The sensitivity for borderline serous tumors was 64.3% and for borderline mucinous tumors 30.8% (p = 0.48). CONCLUSION: With the exception of borderline tumors, the sensitivity and specificity of frozen-section diagnosis of ovarian tumors are high. Borderline tumors remain difficult to accurately diagnose at frozen section because of the extensive sampling required. Frozen-section diagnoses have important implications regarding the type and extent of surgery performed at the initial operation.
OBJECTIVE: Frozen-section evaluation of ovarian tumors can be used to establish a histopathologic diagnosis and guide the surgeon to perform the appropriate surgical procedure. A retrospective study was conducted to determine the accuracy of frozen-section diagnosis of ovarian tumors. STUDY DESIGN: Frozen- and permanent-section diagnoses were divided into three categories (benign, borderline, and malignant). The sensitivity, specificity and predictive values, and 95% percent confidence intervals of each frozen-section diagnosis were determined. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-three ovarian tumors that underwent frozen-section evaluation between June 1983 and June 1993 were studied. The final histopathologic diagnosis was 61.1% benign, 7.6% borderline, and 31.3% malignant. Frozen section was accurate in 92.7% of all cases and inaccurate in 7.3%. The sensitivity for malignant tumors was 92.5% tumors (95% confidence intervals 87.7% to 97.2%), the sensitivity for borderline tumors was 44.8% (95% confidence interval 26.4% to 63.2%). The specificity for benign tumors was 92.0% (95% confidence interval 88.6% to 95.4%) but increased to 97.9% (95% confidence interval 96.1% to 99.7%) if borderline tumors were excluded. The positive predictive value and 95% confidence intervals were 92.0% (88.6% to 95.4%) for benign tumors, 65% (43.6% to 86.5%) for borderline tumors, and 99.1% (97.3% to 100.0%) for malignant tumors. Thirteen of 16 (81%) ovarian lymphomas and tumors metastatic to the ovary were correctly identified by intraoperative frozen section. The sensitivity for borderline serous tumors was 64.3% and for borderline mucinous tumors 30.8% (p = 0.48). CONCLUSION: With the exception of borderline tumors, the sensitivity and specificity of frozen-section diagnosis of ovarian tumors are high. Borderline tumors remain difficult to accurately diagnose at frozen section because of the extensive sampling required. Frozen-section diagnoses have important implications regarding the type and extent of surgery performed at the initial operation.
Authors: Jin Hwi Kim; Tae Jung Kim; Yong Gyu Park; Sung Ha Lee; Chung Won Lee; Min Jong Song; Keun Ho Lee; Soo Young Hur; Seog Nyeon Bae; Jong Sup Park Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-09-30 Impact factor: 4.401
Authors: Agrimaldo Martins-Filho; Paula Carolina Arvelos Crispim; Renata Margarida Etchebehere; Cristina da Cunha Hueb Barata de Oliveira; Eddie Fernando Candido Murta; Rosekeila Simões Nomelini Journal: Case Rep Infect Dis Date: 2017-04-09
Authors: Zhen Huang; Li Li; ChengCheng Li; Samuel Ngaujah; Shu Yao; Ran Chu; Lin Xie; XingSheng Yang; Xiangning Zhang; Peishu Liu; Jie Jiang; Youzhong Zhang; Baoxia Cui; Kun Song; Beihua Kong Journal: J Cancer Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Nithya D G Ratnavelu; Andrew P Brown; Susan Mallett; Rob J P M Scholten; Amit Patel; Christina Founta; Khadra Galaal; Paul Cross; Raj Naik Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-03-01