ArticleGynecologic oncology2013
Intestinal perforation in gynecologic oncology: do all patients benefit from surgical management?
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Small bowel perforation due to indistinguishable metastasis of angiosarcoma: case report and brief literature review.Surgical case reports · 2016Article
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
objectiveTo identify those patients with gynecologic cancers and intestinal perforation in whom conservative management may be appropriate.
methodsA retrospective review was performed of all gynecologic oncology patients with intestinal perforation at our institution between 1995 and 2011. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze factors influencing survival.
resultsForty-three patients met the study criteria. The mean age was 59 years (range: 38-82 years). A large number of patients had peritoneal carcinomatosis and history of bowel obstruction. Surgery was performed in 28 patients, and 15 were managed conservatively. Overall mortality at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was 26%, 40%, 47%, and 59%, respectively. Only cancer burden at the time of perforation was independently predictive of mortality. Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, distant metastasis, or both were at 42 times higher risk of death than those with no evidence of disease (95% CI: 3.28-639.83), and at 7 times higher risk of death than those with microscopic/localized disease (95% CI: 1.77-29.94). When adjusted for the extent of disease spread, management approach (conservative vs. surgical) was not a significant predictor of survival (p≥0.05). The length of hospital stay (19 days vs. 7 days) and the complication rate (75% vs. 26.7%) were significantly higher in the surgical group than in the non-surgical group (p<0.05).
conclusionsPatients who develop intestinal perforation in the setting of widely metastatic disease have a particularly poor prognosis. Aggressive surgical management is unlikely to benefit such patients and further impairs their quality of life.
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.