Dergiler / Türk Patoloji Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 1

Diagnostic Discrepancies Between Intraoperative Frozen Section and Permanent Histopathological Diagnosis of Brain Tumors

Sayfa
34–39
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Further studies should be conducted to explore the reasons of this conflict in the two diagnostic methods.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: Intraoperative frozen section (IOFS) diagnosis of brain tumors plays an important role in assessing the adequacy of the sample and determining the treatment plan.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Material and Method: The authors reviewed the histopathological results of 383 brain tumors, including IOFS and permanent histological diagnosis.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Further studies should be conducted to explore the reasons of this conflict in the two diagnostic methods.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: Intraoperative frozen section (IOFS) diagnosis of brain tumors plays an important role in assessing the adequacy of the sample and determining the treatment plan. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy between IOFS and permanent sections. Material and Method: The authors reviewed the histopathological results of 383 brain tumors, including IOFS and permanent histological diagnosis. The cases were classified into three diagnostic compatibilities (i) Perfect fit; the diagnosis of IOFS was identical to the permanent diagnosis, (ii) Partial compatibility; IOFS diagnosis was not incorrect but was too broad to be considered full compatibility, (iii) Conflict; IOFS diagnosis is completely different from the permanent diagnosis. The permanent diagnosis was used as a primary criterion and was compared to IOFS diagnosis and recurrence rate using different statistical methods. Results: 84% of the patients underwent craniotomy and tumor resection, while 15% only underwent tumor biopsy. Approximately, 53.8 % of the cases revealed perfect matching in the diagnosis between IOFSs and permanent sections, while 16.2% of the cases revealed complete mismatching in the diagnosis between the sections. The remaining 30% of the cases showed partial compatibility in the diagnosis between the two diagnostic methods. There was no significant difference in recurrence rate among all cases of different diagnostic compatibility (p=0.54). Conclusion: There is a diagnostic discrepancy between IOFSs and permanent sections. However, cases that revealed no consensus in the diagnoses showed no negative effect on the patient outcome. Further studies should be conducted to explore the reasons of this conflict in the two diagnostic methods.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

MAGHRABI, Y., KURDI, M., LARY, A., BARDEESI, A., AL-SINANI, T., BAEESA, S., HAKAMY, S., SAMKARI, A., SAEEDI, R. (2022). Diagnostic Discrepancies Between Intraoperative Frozen Section and Permanent Histopathological Diagnosis of Brain Tumors. Türk Patoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 1, 34–39. https://ajindex.com/articles/640345

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, FigarellaBranger D, Cavenee WK, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Kleihues P, Ellison DW. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of tumors of the central nervous system: A summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131:803-20
  2. Taxy JB, Anthony G. Biopsy interpretation: The frozen section. 1st ed. China: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010. 301-3
  3. Somerset HL, Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK. Approach to the intraoperative consultation for neurosurgical specimens. Adv Anat Pathol. 2011;18:446-9
  4. Di Stefano D, Scucchi LF, Cosentino L, Bosman C, Vecchione A. Intraoperative diagnosis of nervous system lesions. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:346-56
  5. Ironside JW, Moss TH, Louis DN, Lowe JS, Weller RO. Intraoperative diagnosis. Diagnostic Pathology of Nervous System Tumours, Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier Science Limited 2002.39-52
  6. Yachnis AT. Intraoperative consultation for nervous system lesions. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2002;19:192-206
  7. Shrestha S, Basyal R, Pathak TSS, Lee M, Dhakal H, Pun C. Comparatve study of frozen secton diagnoses with histopathology. Post Graduate Medical of NAMS. 2009;9:1-5
  8. Adams HJ, Grahan DI, Doyle D. The Smear Technique for Surgical Biopsies. London: Chapman and Hall. 1981
  9. Folkerth RD. Smears and frozen sections in the intraoperative diagnosis of central nervous system lesions. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1994;5:1-18
  10. Plesec T, Prayson R. Frozen section discrepancy in the evaluation of central nervous system tumors. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:1532-40
  11. Sharma N, Misra V, Singh PA, Gupta SK, Debnath S, Nautiya A. Comparative efficacy of imprint and squash cytology in diagnosing lesions of the central nervous system. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:1693-6
  12. Talan-Hraniloviæ J, Vuèiæ M, Ulamec M, Belicza M. Intraoperative frozen section analysis in of the central nervous system and pituitary gland pathology. Acta Clin Croat 2005;44:217-21
  13. Roessler K, Dietrich W, Kitz K. High diagnostic accuracy of cytologic smears of central nervous system tumors. A 15-year experience based on 4,172 patients. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:667-74
  14. Plesec TP, Prayson RA. Frozen section discrepancy in the evaluation of central nervous system tumors. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:1532-40.