Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21678351›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Evaluation of follow-up strategies for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment.

Fiona Kew, Khadra Galaal, Andrew Bryant, Raj Naik

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02298855 (A Randomised Study Comparing Satisfaction With Individualised Follow-up Led by a Trained Cancer Nurse Versus Conventional Medical Follow-up After Primary Treatment for Ovarian Cancer.), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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.

NCT02298855 nacompletednot on this map

A Randomised Study Comparing Satisfaction With Individualised Follow-up Led by a Trained Cancer Nurse Versus Conventional Medical Follow-up After Primary Treatment for Ovarian Cancer.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2006 to 2010Enrolled113ConditionsOvarian CancerArmsIndividualised follow-up
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Surveillance and Care of the Gynecologic Cancer Survivor.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2015
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fiona KewGynaecological Oncology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, G18, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield, UK, S10 2JF.
Khadra Galaal
Andrew Bryant
Raj Naik

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOvarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer and seventh cause of cancer death in women worldwide. Traditionally, many patients who have been treated for cancer undergo long-term follow up in secondary care. Recently however it has been suggested that the use of routine review may not be effective in improving survival, quality of life (QoL), and relieving anxiety. In addition, it may not be cost effective.

objectivesTo compare the potential benefits of different strategies of follow up in women with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE and EMBASE (to November 2010). We also searched CINAHL, PsycLIT, registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of review articles, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated follow-up strategies for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. MAIN

resultsWe found only one RCT (Rustin 2010) that met our inclusion criteria. This trial included 529 women and reported data on immediate treatment versus delayed treatment in women with confirmation of remission and with normal CA125 concentration and no radiological evidence of disease after surgery and first-line chemotherapy.Overall survival showed no significant difference between the immediate and delayed arms after a median follow up of 56.9 months (unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0·98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·80 to 1·20; P = 0·85). Time from randomisation to first deterioration in global health score or death was significantly shorter in the early group compared with the delayed group (HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·58 to 0·88; P < 0·01). The trial was at low risk of bias. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is a lack of randomised studies on most aspects of follow-up care after treatment for epithelial ovarian cancers. Limited evidence from a single trial suggests that routine surveillance with CA125 in asymptomatic patients, with treatment at CA125 relapse, does not seem to offer survival advantage when compared to treatment at symptomatic relapse. Randomised controlled trials are needed to compare different types of follow up on the outcomes of survival, quality of Life, cost and psychological effects.

Indexed as

Neoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialOvarian NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID21678351
PMCPMC4171123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.