ArticleOman medical journal2015
Survival Impact of Secondary Cytoreductive Surgery for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer in an Asian Population.
Article in Oman medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relevance of enlarged cardiophrenic lymph nodes in determining prognosis of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.BMJ case reports · 2018Article
- The outcomes of intestinal resection during debulking surgery for ovarian cancer.Turkish journal of surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the role of secondary cytoreductive surgery in Asian patients with recurrent ovarian cancer and to assess prognostic variables on overall post-recurrence survival time.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who underwent secondary cytoreduction at the Gynaecological Cancer Center at the KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, between 1999 and 2009. Eligible patients included those who had been firstly treated by primary cytoreductive surgery and followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and had a period of clinical remission of at least six months and subsequently underwent secondary cytoreductive surgery for recurrence. Univariate analysis was performed to evaluate various variables influencing the overall survival.
resultsTwenty-five patients met our eligibility criteria. The median age was 52 years (range=31-78 years). The median time from completion of primary treatment to recurrence was 25.1 months (range=6.4-83.4). Secondary cytoreduction was optimal in 20 of 25 patients (80%). The median follow-up duration was 38.9 months (range=17.8-72.4) and median overall survival time was 33.1 months (95% confidence interval, 15.3-undefined.). Ten (40.0%) patients required bowel resection, but no end colostomy was performed. One (4.0%) patient had wedge resection of the liver, one (4.0%) had a distal pancreatectomy, one (4.0%) had a unilateral nephrectomy, and one (4.0%) had adrenalectomy. There were no operative deaths. The overall survival of patients who responded to secondary cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly longer than those patients who did not respond to the treatment. Of those patients who responded to the surgical management, patients with clear cell carcinoma fared well compared to those with the endometrioid, mucinous adenocarcinoma, and papillary serous type (p<0.001). Complete secondary cytoreductive surgery appeared to have some relationship to overall survival but was not statistically significant.
conclusionIn carefully selected patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, optimal cytoreductive surgery is possible and in a subgroup of patients who respond to surgery and chemotherapy survival is significantly longer.
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.