Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19836827›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology2010

Consolidation strategies in ovarian cancer: observations for future clinical trials.

Paul Sabbatini, David Spriggs, Carol Aghajanian, Martee Hensley, William Tew, Jason Konner, Kathryn Bell-McGuinn, Margrit Juretzka, Alexia Iasonos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Opportunities in immunotherapy of ovarian cancer.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2016
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2012
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Immunotherapy for ovarian cancer: what's next?Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2011
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Paul SabbatiniDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA. sabbatip@mskcc.org
David Spriggs
Carol Aghajanian
Martee Hensley
William Tew
Jason Konner
Kathryn Bell-McGuinn
Margrit Juretzka
Alexia Iasonos

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
The Molecular Genetics of MUC16P01CA052477 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SPRIGGS, DAVID R · 1991 to 2009
$15.7M
Ovarian Cancer: Strategies for consolidationK23CA089333 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SABBATINI, PAUL J · 2002 to 2006
$629k
NCI NIH HHS K23 CA089333NCI NIH HHS P01 CA052477NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedClinical Trials as TopicDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOvarian NeoplasmsRemission Induction

Identifiers

PMID19836827
PMCPMC3870340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.