Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30995948›Full record

SynthesisJournal of ovarian research2019

The prognosis impact of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) plus cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in advanced ovarian cancer: the meta-analysis.

Guyu Zhang, Yimin Zhu, Chongdong Liu, Guangming Chao, Ran Cui, Zhenyu Zhang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of ovarian research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Guyu ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, industrial south road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
Yimin ZhuDepartment of Oncology, Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, Guangdong Province, China.
Chongdong LiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, industrial south road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
Guangming ChaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, industrial south road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
Ran CuiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, industrial south road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
Zhenyu ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, industrial south road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China. Zhenyuzhang2000@163.com.

Funding

Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support ZYLX201713Ministry of Science and Technology ZYLX201713Ministry of Science and Technology (VN) 2015DFR31070National Natural Science Funds 81571455
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivePrevious studies about the prognostic value of the HIPEC have yielded controversial results. Therefore, this study aims to assess the impact of HIPEC on patients with ovarian cancer.

resultsWe included 13 comparative studies, and found that the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in HIPEC groups were superior to groups without HIPEC treatment in the all total population (HR = 0.54,95% CI:0.45 to 0.66, HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.62). Additionally, the subgroup analysis showed that patients with advanced primary ovarian cancers also gained improved OS and PFS benefit from HIPEC (HR = 0.59,95% CI:0.46 to 0.75, HR = 0.41,95% CI:0.32 to 0.54). With regard to recurrent ovarian cancer, HIPEC was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.45,95% CI:0.24 to 0.83), but for the PFS, no correlation was observed between HIPC group and the non-HIPEC group (HR = 0.55,95% CI:0.27 to 1.11). HIPEC also led to favorable clinical outcome (HR = 0.64,95% CI:0.50 to 0.82, HR = 0.36,95% CI:0.20 to 0.65) for stage III or IV ovarian cancer with initial diagnosis.

conclusionThe review indicated that HIPEC-based regimens was correlated with better clinical prognosis for patients with primary ovarian cancers. For recurrent ovarian cancers, HIPEC only improved the OS but did not elicit significant value on the PFS.

Indexed as

Cytoreduction Surgical ProceduresHyperthermia, InducedCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOvarian NeoplasmsPrognosisSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeCRSCytoreductive surgeryHIPECHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapyMeta-analysisOvarian cancerReview

Identifiers

PMID30995948
PMCPMC6472063

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.