Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32808497›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gynecologic oncology2020

Lymphadenectomy for primary ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tatsuyuki Chiyoda, Manabu Sakurai, Toyomi Satoh, Satoru Nagase, Mikio Mikami, Hidetaka Katabuchi, Daisuke Aoki

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Tatsuyuki Chiyoda *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. chiyoda@keio.jp.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8214-2242
Manabu Sakurai *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8541-4290
Toyomi SatohDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6929-5463
Satoru NagaseDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yamagata University Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5212-1128
Mikio MikamiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7496-3518
Hidetaka KatabuchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2403-6134
Daisuke AokiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9596-8326
Keio University · JPUniversity of Tsukuba · JPKumamoto University · JPTokai University · JPYamagata University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of lymphadenectomy at primary debulking surgery (PDS) on the survival of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

methodsWe searched PubMed, Ichushi, and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies comparing survival of women with EOC undergoing lymphadenectomy at PDS with that of women without lymphadenectomy were included. We performed a meta-analysis of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events.

resultsFor advanced-stage EOC, 2 RCTs including 1,074 women and 7 cohort studies comprising 3,161 women were evaluated. Meta-analysis revealed that lymphadenectomy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.70-0.90). However, meta-analysis of 2 RCTs revealed no significant difference in OS between the lymphadenectomy and no-lymphadenectomy groups (OS: HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.85-1.22). For early-stage EOC, 1 RCT comprising 268 women and 4 cohort studies comprising 14,228 women were evaluated. Meta-analysis showed that lymphadenectomy was associated with improved OS (HR=0.75; 95% CI=0.68-0.82). A RCT of early-stage EOC reported that lymphadenectomy was not associated with improved OS (HR=0.85; 95% CI=0.49-1.47). Surgery-related deaths were similar in both groups (risk ratio [RR]=1.00; 95% CI=0.99-1.01); however, blood transfusion was required less frequently in the no-lymphadenectomy group (RR=0.74; 95% CI=0.63-0.86).

conclusionsMeta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies suggest that lymphadenectomy was associated with improved OS in advanced- and early-stage EOC. However, results from RCTs demonstrate that lymphadenectomy was not associated with improved OS in advanced- and early-stage EOC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialLymph NodesOvarian NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLymph Node ExcisionLymph Node ExcisionMeta-AnalysisOvarian NeoplasmsSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID32808497
PMCPMC7440977
OpenAlexW3026780830

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.