Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29533028›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2018

Effect of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy on relapse pattern in primary epithelial ovarian cancer: a propensity score based case-control study.

Marco Ceresoli, Apollonia Verrengia, Giulia Montori, Luisa Busci, Federico Coccolini, Luca Ansaloni, Luigi Frigerio

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marco CeresoliUnit of General and Emergency Surgery, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. marco.ceresoli@libero.it.ORCID 0000-0001-7935-3842
Apollonia VerrengiaUnit of Gynecology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6209-3853
Giulia MontoriUnit of General and Emergency Surgery, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7649-2174
Luisa BusciUnit of Gynecology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4908-0067
Federico CoccoliniUnit of General and Emergency Surgery, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6364-4186
Luca AnsaloniUnit of General and Emergency Surgery, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6427-0307
Luigi FrigerioUnit of Gynecology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9823-788X
Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been proposed as a treatment in ovarian cancer. A recently published RCT demonstrated that HIPEC prolongs disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in ovarian cancer. The aim of the study was to investigate oncologic results of cytoreductive surgery+HIPEC compared with cytoreductive surgery alone in advanced primary ovarian cancer with a particular attention to the pattern of recurrence.

methodsThis is a retrospective case control study with a propensity score (PS) matching of the patients. All the patients treated for primary advanced ovarian cancer who underwent interval surgery with or without HIPEC were collected; a PS was calculated in order to match cases to controls.

resultsAmong 77 eligible patients 56 patients were included in the study. Preoperative patients' characteristics were homogeneous. No difference in morbidity and mortality after surgery were recorded. DFS was not different among the 2 groups (13.2 vs. 13.9 months, p=0.454) but OS was better in patients treated with HIPEC with no median reached vs. 35.5 months (p=0.048). Patients treated with cytoreductive surgery alone were more likely to have a peritoneal recurrence (43% vs. 14%).

conclusionHIPEC seems to affect the relapse pattern with lesser peritoneal recurrence. This difference in relapse pattern seems to affect the OS with better results in patients treated with HIPEC. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

Propensity ScoreAgedCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialCase-Control StudiesCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansHyperthermia, InducedMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesCytoreductionDisease-Free SurvivalHyperthermia, InducedNeoplasm RecurrenceOvarian NeoplasmsPropensity Score

Identifiers

PMID29533028
PMCPMC5920229
OpenAlexW2794438269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.