Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28286660›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology research and practice2017

Preference of elderly patients' to oral or intravenous chemotherapy in heavily pre-treated recurrent ovarian cancer: final results of a prospective multicenter trial.

Radoslav Chekerov, Philipp Harter, Stefan Fuxius, Lars Christian Hanker, Linn Woelber, Lothar Müller, Peter Klare, Wolfgang Abenhardt, Yoana Nedkova, Isil Yalcinkaya and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology research and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

19 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Radoslav ChekerovDepartment of Gynaecology, European Competence Centre for Ovarian Cancer, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9535-3033
Philipp HarterDepartment of Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Essen, Germany.
Stefan FuxiusOnkologische Schwerpunktpraxis Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lars Christian HankerDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Gynaecological Cancer Center of the University Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Linn WoelberDepartment of Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Lothar MüllerOnkologische Schwerpunktpraxis Leer, Leer, Germany.
Peter KlarePraxisklinik Krebsheilkunde für Frauen, Berlin, Germany.
Wolfgang AbenhardtOnkologische Schwerpunktpraxis im Elisenhof, Munich, Germany.
Yoana NedkovaDepartment of Gynaecology, European Competence Centre for Ovarian Cancer, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Isil YalcinkayaDepartment of Gynaecology, European Competence Centre for Ovarian Cancer, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Georg HeinrichGynäkologisch-onkologische Schwerpunktpraxis, Fürstenwalde, Germany.
Harald SommerDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sven MahnerDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Pauline WimbergerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Dominique Koensgen-MusteaDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Rolf RichterNorth-Eastern German Society for Gynaecologic Oncology, Ovarian Cancer Study Group, Berlin, Germany.
Gülten Oskay-OezcelikPraxisklinik Krebsheilkunde für Frauen, Berlin, Germany.
Jalid SehouliDepartment of Gynaecology, European Competence Centre for Ovarian Cancer, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Ovarian Cancer Study Group of the North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecological Oncology (NOGGO)
Klinik für Frauenheilkunde · DEPraxis für Hämatologie und Onkologie · DEBerufsverband Niedergelassener Gynäkologischer Onkologen · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEGerman Cancer Society · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversitätsmedizin Greifswald · DEKliniken Essen-Mitte · DETechnische Universität Dresden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPalliative systemic treatment in elderly gynaecological cancer patients remains a major challenge. In recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), treosulfan an active alkylating drug showed similar cytotoxicity whether as oral (p.o.) or intravenous (i.v.) application. The aim of this innovative trial was to evaluate the preference of elderly patients (≥65 years) for p.o. or i.v. chemotherapy focusing compliance, outcome, toxicities, and geriatric aspects as secondary endpoints.

methodsPatients with ROC had the free choice between treosulfan i.v. (7000 mg/m

resultsOverall 123 patients with 2

conclusionsElderly patients with recurrent ovarian cancer asked and demonstrated active participation in the decision-making process of their oncological treatment and favoured predominantly the i.v. application. Treosulfan was generally well-tolerated despite comorbidities and heavy pre-treatment. Our study demonstrates that patients' preference did not influence prognosis negatively and remains important in gynaecologic oncology decision practice. EUDRACT NR: 2004-000719-25; NCT 00170690.

Indexed as

ElderlyPatient preferenceRecurrent ovarian cancerTreosulfan

Identifiers

PMID28286660
PMCPMC5341434
OpenAlexW2593339007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.