Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27892998›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2017

Overall Survival Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy vs Primary Cytoreductive Surgery in Women With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Database.

J Alejandro Rauh-Hain, Alexander Melamed, Alexi Wright, Allison Gockley, Joel T Clemmer, John O Schorge, Marcela G Del Carmen, Nancy L Keating

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
15.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Survival outcome and perioperative complication related to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel for advanced ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J Alejandro Rauh-HainDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Alexander MelamedDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Alexi WrightDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts3Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Allison GockleyDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Joel T ClemmerDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
John O SchorgeDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Marcela G Del CarmenDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nancy L KeatingDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 5Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

Program in Cancer Research Outcomes Training (PCORT)R25CA092203 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GAZELLE, G SCOTT · 2002 to 2016
$8.2M
Chemotherapy Near Death: Modifiable Factors and Outcomes in Ovarian CancerK07CA166210 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI WRIGHT, ALEXI A · 2013 to 2017
$886k
Behavioral Economics and Improving Chemotherapy Decisions for Advanced CancerK24CA181510 · NCI · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI KEATING, NANCY L · 2014 to 2018
$867k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA166210NCI NIH HHS K24 CA181510NCI NIH HHS R25 CA092203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceUncertainty remains about the relative benefits of primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

objectiveTo compare overall survival of PCS vs NACT in a large national population of women with advanced-stage EOC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsRetrospective cohort study of women with stage IIIC and IV EOC diagnosed between 2003 and 2011 treated at hospitals across the United States reporting to the National Cancer Data Base. We focused on patients 70 years or younger with a Charlson comorbidity index of 0 who were likely candidates for either treatment. EXPOSURES: Initial treatment approach of PCS vs NACT, examined using an intent-to-treat analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall survival, defined as months from cancer diagnosis to death or date of the last contact. We used propensity score matching to compare similar women who underwent PCS and NACT. The association of treatment approach with overall survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. We assessed whether the findings were influenced by differences in the prevalence of an unobserved confounder, such as limited performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1-2), preoperative disease burden, and BRCA status.

resultsAmong 22 962 patients (mean [SD] age, 56.12 [9.38] years), 19 836 (86.4%) received PCS and 3126 (13.6%) underwent NACT. We matched 2935 patients treated with NACT with similar patients who received PCS. The median follow-up was 56.5 (95% CI, 54.5-59.2) months in the PCS group and 56.3 (95% CI, 54.5-59.8) months in the NACT group in the propensity-matched cohort. Among propensity score-matched groups, the median overall survival was 37.3 (95% CI, 35.2-38.7) months in the PCS group and 32.1 (95% CI, 30.8-34.1) months in the NACT group (P < .001). However, if the NACT group had a higher proportion of women with performance statuses of 1 to 2 compared with those who underwent PCS (60% vs 50%), the association of PCS and improved survival would not be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Primary cytoreductive surgery was associated with improved survival compared with NACT in otherwise healthy women with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer aged 70 years or younger. The lower survival in women who received NACT could be explained by a higher prevalence of limited performance status in women undergoing NACT.

Indexed as

Cytoreduction Surgical ProceduresNeoadjuvant TherapyAdultAgedCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialCombined Modality TherapyDatabases, FactualDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialNeoplasm StagingOvarian Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27892998
PMCPMC5548189
OpenAlexW2554234257

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.