Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27567562›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2017

Laparoscopic staging for apparent stage I epithelial ovarian cancer.

Alexander Melamed, Nancy L Keating, Joel T Clemmer, Amy J Bregar, Jason D Wright, David M Boruta, John O Schorge, Marcela G Del Carmen, J Alejandro Rauh-Hain

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: 2025 update.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander MelamedDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Nancy L KeatingDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, and Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Joel T ClemmerDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Amy J BregarDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Jason D WrightDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY.
David M BorutaDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
John O SchorgeDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Marcela G Del CarmenDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
J Alejandro Rauh-HainDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: jrauh-hain@partners.org.
Harvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · US

Funding

Program in Cancer Research Outcomes Training (PCORT)R25CA092203 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GAZELLE, G SCOTT · 2002 to 2016
$8.2M
Behavioral Economics and Improving Chemotherapy Decisions for Advanced CancerK24CA181510 · NCI · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI KEATING, NANCY L · 2014 to 2018
$867k
NCI NIH HHS K24 CA181510NCI NIH HHS R25 CA092203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhereas advances in minimally invasive surgery have made laparoscopic staging technically feasible in stage I epithelial ovarian cancer, the practice remains controversial because of an absence of randomized trials and lack of high-quality observational studies demonstrating equivalent outcomes.

objectiveThis study seeks to evaluate the association of laparoscopic staging with survival among women with clinical stage I epithelial ovarian cancer. STUDY

designWe used the National Cancer Data Base to identify all women who underwent surgical staging for clinical stage I epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed from 2010 through 2012. The exposure of interest was planned surgical approach (laparoscopy vs laparotomy), and the primary outcome was overall survival. The primary analysis was based on an intention to treat: all women whose procedures were initiated laparoscopically were categorized as having had a planned laparoscopic procedure, regardless of subsequent conversion to laparotomy. We used propensity methods to match patients who underwent planned laparoscopic staging with similar patients who underwent planned laparotomy based on observed characteristics. We compared survival among the matched cohorts using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. We compared the extent of lymphadenectomy using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

resultsAmong 4798 eligible patients, 1112 (23.2%) underwent procedures that were initiated laparoscopically, of which 190 (17%) were converted to laparotomy. Women who underwent planned laparoscopy were more frequently white, privately insured, from wealthier ZIP codes, received care in community cancer centers, and had smaller tumors that were more frequently of serous and less often of mucinous histology than those who underwent staging via planned laparotomy. After propensity score matching, time to death did not differ between patients undergoing planned laparoscopic vs open staging (hazard ratio, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.09; P = .13). Planned laparoscopic staging was associated with a slightly higher median lymph node count (14 vs 12, P = .005). Planned laparoscopic staging was not associated with time to death after adjustment for receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, histological type and grade, and pathological stage (hazard ratio, 0.82, 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.16).

conclusionSurgical staging via planned laparoscopy vs laparotomy was not associated with worse survival in women with apparent stage I epithelial ovarian cancer.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdenocarcinoma, Clear CellAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCancer Care FacilitiesCarcinoma, EndometrioidCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialChemotherapy, AdjuvantConversion to Open SurgeryDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansInsurance, HealthKaplan-Meier EstimateLaparoscopylaparoscopylaparotomyovarian cancerstaging

Identifiers

PMID27567562
PMCPMC5618712
OpenAlexW2518861718

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.