Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25562434›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2015

Surgical staging and prognosis in serous borderline ovarian tumours (BOT): a subanalysis of the AGO ROBOT study.

F Trillsch, S Mahner, E Vettorazzi, L Woelber, A Reuss, K Baumann, M-D Keyver-Paik, U Canzler, K Wollschlaeger, D Forner and 22 more

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Base rate of ovarian cancer on algorithms in patients with a pelvic mass.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Mucinous borderline ovarian tumors: Analysis of 75 patients from a single center.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2016
    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

32 authors.

F TrillschUniversitaetsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Klinik und Poliklinik fuer Gynaekologie, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
S MahnerUniversitaetsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Klinik und Poliklinik fuer Gynaekologie, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
E VettorazziUniversitaetsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Institut fuer Medizinische Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
L WoelberUniversitaetsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Klinik und Poliklinik fuer Gynaekologie, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
A ReussPhilipps-Universitaet Marburg, Koordinierungszentrum fuer Klinische Studien, Karl-von-Frisch-Str. 4, 35043 Marburg, Germany.
K BaumannUniversitaetsklinikum Giessen u. Marburg GmbH, Klinik fuer Gynaekologie, Gyn. Endokrinologie und Onkologie, Baldingerstr., 35043 Marburg, Germany.
M-D Keyver-PaikRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitaet, Universitaets-Frauenklinik, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
U CanzlerTechnische Universitaet Dresden, Klinik und Poliklinik fuer Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
K WollschlaegerUniversitaetsklinikum Magdeburg, Universitaets-Frauenklinik, Gerhart-Hauptmann-Str. 35, 39108 Magdeburg, Germany.
D FornerSana-Klinikum Remscheid, Klinik fuer Frauenheilkunde und Geburtsmedizin, Burger Strasse 211, 42859 Remscheid, Germany.
J Pfisterer1] Staedtisches Klinikum Solingen gGmbH, Klinik fuer Gynaekologie und Geburtshilfe, Gotenstrasse 1, 42653 Solingen, Germany [2] Zentrum fuer Gynaekologische Onkologie, Herzog-Friedrich-Str. 21, 24103 Kiel, Germany.
W SchroederGYNAEKOLOGICUM Bremen, Schwachhauser Heerstrasse 367, 28211 Bremen, Germany.
K MuenstedtUniversitaetsklinikum Giessen, Zentrum fuer Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Klinikstrasse 33, 35352 Giessen, Germany.
B RichterElblandkliniken Meissen-Radebeul GmbH & Co. KG, Frauenklinik, Heinrich-Zille-Str. 13, 01445 Radebeul, Germany.
C FotopoulouCharité, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Frauenklinik, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
B SchmalfeldtKlinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universitaet, Frauen- und Poliklinik, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
A BurgesKlinikum der Universitaet Muenchen, Campus Grosshadern, Klinik und Poliklinik fuer Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Marchioninistr.15, 81377 Munich, Germany.
N Ewald-RieglerDr Horst Schmidt Klinik GmbH, Klinik fuer Gynaekologie und gynaekologische Onkologie, Ludwig-Erhard-Str. 100, 65199 Wiesbaden, Germany.
N de GregorioUniversitaetsklinikum Ulm, Frauenklinik, Prittwitzstrasse 43, 89075 Ulm, Germany.
F HilpertUniversitaetsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Klinik fuer Gynaekologie und Geburtshilfe, Michaelisstrasse 16, 24105 Kiel, Germany.
T Fehm1] Universitaetsklinikum Tuebingen, Department fuer Frauengesundheit, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany [2] Universitaetsklinikum Duesseldorf, Universitaetsfrauenklinik, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany.
W MeierEvangelisches Krankenhaus, Frauenklinik, Kirchfeldstrasse 40, 40217 Duesseldorf, Germany.
P HillemannsMedizinische Hochschule Hannover, Frauenklinik, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
L Hanker1] Klinikum der J.W. Goethe-Universitaet, Zentrum fuer Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany [2] Universitaetsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Klinik fuer Gynaekologie und Geburtshilfe, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562 Luebeck, Germany.
A HasenburgUniversitaetsklinikum Freiburg, Frauenklinik, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
H-G StraussUniversitaetsklinikum Halle (Saale), Universitaetsklinik und Poliklinik fuer Gynaekologie, Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany.
M HellriegelGeorg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Gynaekologie und Geburtshilfe, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075 Goettingen, Germany.
P Wimberger1] Technische Universitaet Dresden, Klinik und Poliklinik fuer Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany [2] Universitaetsklinikum Essen, Klinik fuer Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Essen, Germany.
S Kommoss1] Dr Horst Schmidt Klinik GmbH, Klinik fuer Gynaekologie und gynaekologische Onkologie, Ludwig-Erhard-Str. 100, 65199 Wiesbaden, Germany [2] Universitaetsklinikum Tuebingen, Department fuer Frauengesundheit, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.
F KommossInstitut fuer Pathologie, Referenzzentrum fuer Gynaekopathologie, A2,2, 68159 Mannheim, Germany.
S Hauptmann1] Universitaetsklinikum Halle (Saale), Universitaetsklinik und Poliklinik fuer Gynaekologie, Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany [2] Institut fuer Pathologie Trier-Dueren-Duesseldorf, Roonstrasse 30, 52351 Dueren, Germany.
A du BoisKliniken Essen-Mitte, Klinik fuer Gynaekologische Onkologie, Henricistrasse 92, 45136 Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncomplete surgical staging is a negative prognostic factor for patients with borderline ovarian tumours (BOT). However, little is known about the prognostic impact of each individual staging procedure.

methodsClinical parameters of 950 patients with BOT (confirmed by central reference pathology) treated between 1998 and 2008 at 24 German AGO centres were analysed. In 559 patients with serous BOT and adequate ovarian surgery, further recommended staging procedures (omentectomy, peritoneal biopsies, cytology) were evaluated applying Cox regression models with respect to progression-free survival (PFS).

resultsFor patients with one missing staging procedure, the hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence was 1.25 (95%-CI 0.66-2.39; P=0.497). This risk increased with each additional procedure skipped reaching statistical significance in case of two (HR 1.95; 95%-CI 1.06-3.58; P=0.031) and three missing steps (HR 2.37; 95%-CI 1.22-4.64; P=0.011). The most crucial procedure was omentectomy which retained a statistically significant impact on PFS in multiple analysis (HR 1.91; 95%-CI 1.15-3.19; P=0.013) adjusting for previously established prognostic factors as FIGO stage, tumour residuals, and fertility preservation.

conclusionIndividual surgical staging procedures contribute to the prognosis for patients with serous BOT. In this analysis, recurrence risk increased with each skipped surgical step. This should be considered when re-staging procedures following incomplete primary surgery are discussed.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCystadenoma, SerousFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingOvarian NeoplasmsPrognosisYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25562434
PMCPMC4333495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.