Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19879639›Full record

ReviewGynecologic oncology2010

Current state of biomarker development for clinical application in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Richard G Moore, Shannon MacLaughlan, Robert C Bast

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gynecologic oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. International journal of oncology · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Richard G MooreProgram in Women's Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants' Hospital, Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. rmoore@wihri.org
Shannon MacLaughlan
Robert C Bast

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON SPORE IN OVARIAN CANCERP50CA083639 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BAST, ROBERT C · 1999 to 2015
$33.0M
Development of an Assay for the Early Detection of Ovarian CancerR01CA136491 · NCI · WOMEN AND INFANTS HOSPITAL-RHODE ISLAND · PI MOORE, RICHARD G. · 2009 to 2013
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P50 CA083639NCI NIH HHS P50 CA83639NCI NIH HHS R01 CA136491
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Each year in the United States over 15,000 women die of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and 22,000 are diagnosed with the disease. The incidence of ovarian cancer has remained stable over the past decade however, survival rates have improved steadily. Increases in survival rates can be attributed to the advances in surgical management, development of effective cytotoxic drugs and the route of administration of chemotherapy. Ovarian cancer survival rates could also be improved through screening and early detection. Disappointingly, effective screening methods have not been established and continue to be elusive. Historically the goal of a screening test was to achieve a positive predictive value (PPV) greater than 10% in order be considered cost effective and have an acceptable risk for the population being screened. Despite the inability of currently available screening algorithms to achieve the desired PPV there may be an advantage in producing a stage migration to lower stages at the time of diagnoses, thereby resulting in improved survival. Equally important recent studies have demonstrated that women who have their initial surgery performed by gynecologic oncologists, and women who have their surgeries at centers experienced in the treatment of ovarian cancer have higher survival rates. For these reasons it is essential that all women at high risk for ovarian cancer receive their initial care by gynecologic oncologists and at centers with multidisciplinary teams experienced in the optimal care of ovarian cancer patients. With this in mind, methods that facilitate the accurate triage of women who will ultimately be diagnosed with ovarian cancer could play a significant role in improving survival rates for these patients. This review article will examine the current state of biomarker use in ovarian cancer screening, risk assessment and for monitoring ovarian cancer patients.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCA-125 AntigenFemaleHumansMass ScreeningOvarian NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentBiomarkers, TumorCA-125 Antigen

Identifiers

PMID19879639
PMCPMC3134885

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.