Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31243666›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2019

Maximal-Effort Cytoreductive Surgery for Ovarian Cancer Patients with a High Tumor Burden: Variations in Practice and Impact on Outcome.

Marcia Hall, Konstantinos Savvatis, Katherine Nixon, Maria Kyrgiou, Kuhan Hariharan, Malcolm Padwick, Owen Owens, Paula Cunnea, Jeremy Campbell, Alan Farthing and 7 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Worldwide barriers of optimal surgical care provision in advanced ovarian cancer.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Surgery for Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.Current oncology reports · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Marcia HallMount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, Middlesex, UK.
Konstantinos SavvatisInherited Cardiovascular Diseases Unit, Barts Heart Centre, London, UK.
Katherine NixonDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK.
Maria KyrgiouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK.
Kuhan HariharanMount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, Middlesex, UK.
Malcolm PadwickWest Hertfordshire Gynaecological Cancer Centre, WHH NHS Trust, Watford, UK.
Owen OwensWest Hertfordshire Gynaecological Cancer Centre, WHH NHS Trust, Watford, UK.
Paula CunneaDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK.
Jeremy CampbellDepartment of Anaesthetics, Centre for Perioperative Medicine and Critical Care Research, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Ham House, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK.
Alan FarthingDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK.
Richard StumpfleDepartment of Anaesthetics, Centre for Perioperative Medicine and Critical Care Research, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Ham House, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK.
Ignacio VazquezMount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, Middlesex, UK.
Neale WatsonDepartment of Gynaecology, Hillingdon Hospital, Pield Heath Road, Uxbridge, UK.
Jonathan KrellDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK.
Hani GabraDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK.
Gordon RustinMount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, Middlesex, UK.
Christina FotopoulouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK. chfotopoulou@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to compare the outcomes of two distinct patient populations treated within two neighboring UK cancer centers (A and B) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

methodsA retrospective analysis of all new stages 3 and 4 EOC patients treated between January 2013 and December 2014 was performed. The Mayo Clinic surgical complexity score (SCS) was applied. Cox regression analysis identified the impact of treatment methods on survival.

resultsThe study identified 249 patients (127 at center A and 122 in centre B) without significant differences in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (FIGO 4, 29.7% at centers A and B), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (ECOG < 2, 89.9% at centers A and B), or histology (serous type in 84.1% at centers A and B). The patients at center A were more likely to undergo surgery (87% vs 59.8%; p < 0.001). The types of chemotherapy and the patients receiving palliative treatment alone were equivalent between the two centers (3.6%). The median SCS was significantly higher at center A (9 vs 2; p < 0.001) with greater tumor burden (9 vs 6 abdominal fields involved; p < 0.001), longer median operation times (285 vs 155 min; p < 0.001), and longer hospital stays (9 vs 6 days; p < 0.001), but surgical morbidity and mortality were equivalent. The independent predictors of reduced overall survival (OS) were non-serous histology (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-2.61), ECOG higher than 2 (HR, 1.9; 95% CI 1.15-3.13), and palliation alone (HR, 3.43; 95% CI 1.51-7.81). Cytoreduction, of any timing, had an independent protective impact on OS compared with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.31 for interval surgery and 0.39 for primary surgery), even after adjustment for other prognostic factors.

conclusionsIncorporating surgery into the initial EOC management, even for those patients with a greater tumor burden and more disseminated disease, may require more complex procedures and more resources in terms of theater time and hospital stay, but seems to be associated with a significant prolongation of the patients overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone.

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma, Clear CellAdenocarcinoma, MucinousAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCystadenocarcinoma, SerousCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPractice Patterns, Physicians'PrognosisRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31243666
PMCPMC6682567

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.