ArticleGynecologic oncology2010
Consolidation strategies in ovarian cancer: observations for future clinical trials.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opportunities in immunotherapy of ovarian cancer.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2016Review
- Article
- Identifying clinical improvement in consolidation single-arm phase 2 trials in patients with ovarian cancer in second or greater clinical remission.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2012Article
- Health-related quality of life in ovarian cancer patients and its impact on clinical management.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2011Review
- Immunotherapy for ovarian cancer: what's next?Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PURPOSE.: To describe the characteristics of a series of study populations of ovarian cancer patients with identical eligibility criteria in second or subsequent clinical remission (cCR) and to propose endpoint benchmarks for future consolidation studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS.: The patient populations consisted of those (1) untreated (U; observed until progression; n=35, (2) receiving imatinib (G; n=32), (3) receiving goserelin and bicalutamide (A; n=32), and (4) receiving vaccine (V; n=68; total=167). The endpoint of the combined analysis was progression-free survival in second remission (PFS 2). Patient characteristics were compared by chi-square test, and factors predicting PFS 2 evaluated in multivariate Cox model. RESULTS.: Groups were comparable for age, stage, grade, and debulking. Multivariate model to predict PFS 2 duration included histology, stage, optimal debulking, PFS 1 duration, and the type of intervention. As a benchmark for future studies, the median PFS 2 of the combined population of G, A, and U (removing V which had the most impact in prolonging PFS 2, n=68) was 11.3 months (95% CI: 10.4-12.5 months). The percent of patients with PFS 2>PFS 1 was 14/90 (16%). At 12 months, 43% remain progression-free. CONCLUSION.: Preliminary benchmarks for efficacy endpoints are suggested for future consolidation trials of patients in cCR. However, the suggested strategies will require validation in randomized trials and larger data sets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.