FROZEN SECTION UNDER MICROSCOPE: AUDITING DIAGNOSTIC PITFALLS IN INTRAOPERATIVEPATHOLOGY
Main Article Content
Keywords
Frozen section; discordant; audit, intraoperative pathology
Abstract
Sometimes there is a disagreement between the frozen section (FS) and the histopathological diagnosis because of significant limitations in FS processing and reporting, such as poor morphology and freezing artifact. A medical audit of FS reports was conducted to identify the cause of diagnostic limitations in FS reporting and formulating preventive measures to overcome these limitations.
Objectives: To identify the cause of diagnostic limitations in FS reporting and formulating preventive measures to overcome these limitations
Material and Methods: This retrospective medical audit done in the Department of Pathology in a tertiary hospital. The study was done from January 2024 to June 2024. The records of 48 FS and the corresponding final formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) histopathology reports during the study period of 6 months were compared and analyzed. The results were categorized into concordant, discordant. The slides of the discordant cases were reviewed and the causes of discrepancy were noted.
Results: 70% FS referral were by Surgical oncology team. Percentage of discordance was seen in 8.6 % cases (4 cases out of 48). 94.5% FS consultations had average turnaround time of 25 min. In the remaining cases (5.5%) the turnaround time (TAT) was around 30-35 min.
Conclusion: FS is a valuable intraoperative diagnostic tool with high concordance to final histopathology, supporting critical surgical decisions. While accuracy may be affected by sampling, technical, and interpretative factors, most discrepancies are preventable through standardization, quality control, and ongoing education. Targeted training for surgeons and continuous auditing are essential to maintain diagnostic accuracy, enhance patient safety, and optimize frozen section services.
References
2. Hazard JB, Stevenson GF. A frozen section technic. Am J Clin Pathol. 1949;19:873. Doi: 10.1093/ajcp/19.9_ts.873
3. David AN, Richard JZ. Interinstitutional comparison of frozen section turnaround time. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 1997;121(6):559–68.
4. Ackerman LV, Ramirez GA. The indications for and limitations of frozen section diagnosis: A review of 1269 consecutive frozen sections. Br J Surg. 1959;46:336. Doi: 10.1002/bjs.18004619806.
5. Susan C. Manual of Surgical Pathology. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2001. Lester. Operating Room Consultations; pp. 39–40. 1
6. Dankwa EK, Davies JD. Frozen section diagnosis: an audit. J Clin Pathol. 1985 Nov;38(11):1235-40. doi: 10.1136/jcp.38.11.1235. PMID: 4066983; PMCID: PMC499419.
7. Prajapati, Jagdish & Parikh, Biren. (2021). Intraoperative Frozen Section Analysis - A Study of Tertiary Care Centre. International Journal of Current Research and Review. 13. 10.31782/IJCRR.2021.131714.
8. Tangde, Ashwini & Shrivastava, Vaidik & Joshi, Anil. (2019). Analysis of frozen section in correlation with surgical pathology diagnosis. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 7. 2312. 10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20192519.
9. Ozdamar SO, Bahadir B, Ekem TE, Kertis G, Dogan B, Nu-manoglu G et al. Frozen section experience with emphasis on reasons for discordance. Turkish Journal of cancer 2006;36:157-
10. Mahe E, Ara S, Bishara M, Kurian A, Tauqir S, Ursani N et. al. Intraoperative pathology consultation: error, cause and impact. Can J Surg 2013;56:E13-18.
11. da Silva RD, Souto LR, Matsushita GdeM, Matsushita MdeM. Diagnostic accuracy of frozen section tests for surgical diseases. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2011;38:149-54.
12. Ozdamar SO, Bahadir B, Ekem TE, Kertis G, Dogan B, Nu- manoglu G et al. Frozen section experience with emphasis on reasons for discordance. Turkish Journal of cancer 2006;36:157-61.
13. Mahe E, Ara S, Bishara M, Kurian A, Tauqir S, Ursani N et. al. Intraoperative pathology consultation: error, cause and impact. Can J Surg 2013;56:E13-18.
14. da Silva RD, Souto LR, Matsushita GdeM, Matsushita MdeM. Diagnostic accuracy of frozen section tests for surgical diseases. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2011;38:149-54.
15. Ozdamar SO, Bahadir B, Ekem TE, Kertis G, Dogan B, Numanoglu G et al. Frozen section experience with emphasis on reasons for discordance. Turkish Journal of cancer 2006;36:157-61.
16. Mahe E, Ara S, Bishara M, Kurian A, Tauqir S, Ursani N et. al. Intraoperative pathology consultation: error, cause and impact. Can J Surg 2013;56:E13-18.
17. da Silva RD, Souto LR, Matsushita GdeM, Matsushita MdeM. Diagnostic accuracy of frozen section tests for surgical diseases. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2011;38:149-54.
18. Mahe E, Ara S, Bishara M, Kurian A, Tauqir S, Ursani N, Vasudev P, Aziz T, Ross C, Lytwyn A. Intraoperative pathology consultation: error, cause and impact. Can J Surg. 2013 Jun;56(3):E13-8. doi: 10.1503/cjs.011112. PMID: 23706852; PMCID: PMC3672438.
19. Hatami H, Mohsenifar Z, Alavi SN. The Diagnostic Accuracy of Frozen Section Compared to Permanent Section: A Single Center Study in Iran. Iran J Pathol. 2015 Fall;10(4):295-9. PMID: 26351500; PMCID: PMC4539748.
20. Ozdamar SO, Bahadir B, Ekem TE, Kertis G, Dogan B, Nu- manoglu G et al. Frozen section experience with emphasis on reasons for discordance. Turkish Journal of cancer 2006;36:157-61.
21. da Silva RD, Souto LR, Matsushita GdeM, Matsushita MdeM. Diagnostic accuracy of frozen section tests for surgical diseases. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2011;38:149-54.
22. Briggs S, Knabel D. Mohs Micrographic Surgery Interpretation of Technical Problems Impacting Slide Quality. [Updated 2024 Nov 18]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK610684/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
23. Weiss SW, Willis J, Jansen J, Goldblum J, Greenfield L. Frozen section consultation. Utilization patterns and knowledge base of surgical faculty at a university hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;104(3):294–8. Doi: 10.1093/ajcp/104.3.294

