English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Surgeons sometimes have difficulty determining which result to favor when preoperative results (MRI + preoperative endometrial biopsy [pre-op EB]) differ from intraoperative frozen section histology (FS) results. Investigation of how FS can complement ordinary preoperative examinations like MRI and pre-op EB in identification of patients at high risk of lymph node metastasis (high-risk patients) could provide clarity on this issue. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the utility of pre-op EB, MRI and FS results and determine how to combine these results in identification of high-risk patients.    Methods  The subjects were 172 patients with endometrial cancer. Patients with a histological high-grade tumor (HGT), namely, grade 3 endometrioid cancer, clear cell carcinoma or serous cell carcinoma, or with any type of cancer invading at least half of the uterine myometrium were considered high-risk. Tumors invading at least half of the uterine myometrium were classified as high-stage tumors (HST). We compared  (a)  detection of HGT using pre-op EB versus FS,  (b)  detection of HST using MRI versus FS, and  (c)  identification of high-risk patients using MRI + pre-op EB versus FS. Lastly, we determined to what degree addition of FS results improves identification of high-risk patients by routine MRI + pre-op EB.    Results   (a)  Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for detecting HGT were 59.6, 98.4 and 87.8% for pre-op EB versus 55.3, 99.2 and 87.2% for FS ( P  = 0.44).  (b)  These figures for detecting HST were 74.4, 83.0 and 80.8% for MRI versus 46.5, 99.2 and 86.0% for FS ( P  < 0.001).  (c)  These figures for identifying high-risk patients were 78.3, 85.4 and 82.6% for MRI + pre-op EB versus 55.1, 99.0 and 81.2% for FS ( P  < 0.001). The high specificity of FS improved the sensitivity of MRI + pre-op EB from 78.3 to 81.2%, but this difference was not statistically significant ( P  < 0.16).    Conclusion  Frozen section enables identification of high-risk patients with nearly 100% specificity. This advantage can be used to improve sensitivity for identification of high-risk patients by routine MRI + pre-op EB, although this improvement is not statistically significant.

Can addition of frozen section analysis to preoperative endometrial biopsy and MRI improve identification of high-risk endometrial cancer patients?