Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31852138›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

Selection of patients with ovarian cancer who may show survival benefit from hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Se Ik Kim, Jaehyun Cho, Eun Ji Lee, Sunwoo Park, Soo Jin Park, Aeran Seol, Nara Lee, Ga Won Yim, Maria Lee, Whasun Lim and 4 more

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

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

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

14 authors.

Se Ik KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine.
Jaehyun ChoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soon Chun Hyang University Hospital Seoul.
Eun Ji LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine.
Sunwoo ParkInstitute of Animal Molecular Biotechnology and Department of Biotechnology, College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University.
Soo Jin ParkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine.
Aeran SeolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine.
Nara LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Gangnam Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seoul.
Ga Won YimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine.
Maria LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine.
Whasun LimDepartment of Food and Nutrition, Kookmin University, Seoul.
Gwonhwa SongInstitute of Animal Molecular Biotechnology and Department of Biotechnology, College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University.
Suk Joon ChangGynecologic Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Jae Won KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine.
Hee Seung KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) after cytoreductive surgery has been extensively studied in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from various malignancies. However, the effectiveness of HIPEC for ovarian cancer is still controversial. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to identify patients with ovarian cancer who can obtain survival benefit from HIPEC.

methodsArticles regarding HIPEC in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched till December 2018. In total, 13 case-control studies and two randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. We investigated the effect of HIPEC on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), and performed subgroup analyses based on the study design, adjustment of confounding variables, and quality of the study.

resultsHIPEC improved both DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.603; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.513-0.709) and OS (HR, 0.640; 95% CI, 0.519-0.789). In cases of primary disease, HIPEC improved DFS (HR, 0.580; 95% CI, 0.476-0.706) and OS (HR, 0.611; 95% CI, 0.376-0.992). Subgroup analyses revealed that HIPEC did not improve OS but improved DFS of patients with residual tumors ≤1 cm or no visible tumors. In cases of recurrent disease, HIPEC was associated with better OS (HR, 0.566; 95% CI, 0.379-0.844) but not with DFS. Subgroup analyses also revealed similar tendencies. However, HIPEC improved DFS of patients with residual tumors ≤1 cm or no visible tumors, while it improved OS of only those with residual tumors ≤1 cm.

conclusionsHIPEC may improve DFS of patients with ovarian cancer when residual tumors were ≤1 cm or not visible. It may also improve OS of only patients with recurrent disease whose residual tumors were ≤1 cm.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionAdultDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansHyperthermia, InducedMiddle AgedNeoplasm, ResidualNeoplasm StagingOvarian NeoplasmsProportional Hazards ModelsSurvival RateTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31852138
PMCPMC6922570

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.