Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32840622›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Evaluation of Cytoreductive Surgery With or Without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Stage III Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

Ziying Lei, Yue Wang, Jiahong Wang, Ke Wang, Jun Tian, Ying Zhao, Lipai Chen, Jin Wang, Jiali Luo, Manman Jia and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Ziying LeiAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yue WangHenan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Jiahong WangAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Ke WangTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Jun TianHuaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, China.
Ying ZhaoAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Lipai ChenAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jin WangAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jiali LuoAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Manman JiaAffiliated Tumor Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Tumor Hospital of Henan Province, Henan, China.
Hongsheng TangAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Qingjun HeAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Quanxing LiaoAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiansheng YangAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Tianpei GuanAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Li WangAffiliated Tumor Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Tumor Hospital of Henan Province, Henan, China.
Shuzhong CuiAffiliated Cancer Hospital and Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Chinese Peritoneal Oncology Study Group (Gynecologic Oncology Study Group)
Guangzhou Medical University · CNHenan Cancer Hospital · CNHenan Provincial People's Hospital · CNHenan University Huaihe Hospital and Huaihe Clinical Institute · CNTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CNZhengzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Interval cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) showed promising oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer, but a large-scale, multicenter study to evaluate the efficacy of HIPEC combined with primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) has yet to be conducted. Objective: To compare survival outcomes between PCS with HIPEC vs PCS alone for patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted from January 2010 to May 2017 at 5 high-volume institutions in China. A total of 584 patients with stage III primary epithelial ovarian cancer were treated with either PCS alone or PCS with HIPEC. The median (interquartile range) follow-up period was 42.2 (33.3-51.0) months. Data analysis was conducted from August to December 2019. Exposures: PCS with HIPEC vs PCS alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were median survival time and 3-year overall survival. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, based on propensity score, was used to control for confounding factors. Results: From a total of 789 patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer, 584 patients (74.0%; mean [SD] age, 55.0 [10.5] years) were ultimately included for IPTW in this study. Of the 584 patients, 425 (72.8%) underwent PCS with HIPEC and 159 (27.2%) underwent PCS alone. After IPTW adjustment, the median survival time was 49.8 (95% CI, 45.2-60.2) months for patients undergoing PCS with HIPEC and 34.0 (95% CI, 28.9-41.5) months for patients undergoing PCS alone, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 60.3% (95% CI, 55.3%-65.0%) for patients undergoing PCS with HIPEC and 49.5% (95% CI, 41.0%-57.4%) for patients undergoing PCS alone (weighted hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001). Further stratified into complete and incomplete surgery subgroups, patients in the PCS with HIPEC group had significantly better survival than those in the PCS group, except for the 3-year overall survival rate in the incomplete subgroup. Among those who underwent complete surgical procedures and comparing those who received PCS with HIPEC vs those who received PCS alone, the median survival time was 53.9 (95% CI, 46.6-63.7) months vs 42.3 (95% CI, 31.1-59.3) months (P = .02), and the 3-year overall survival rate was 65.9% (95% CI, 60.1%-71.2%) vs 55.4% (95% CI, 44.7%-64.8%) (P = .04); meanwhile, among patients who underwent incomplete surgical procedures and comparing those who received PCS with HIPEC vs those who received PCS alone, the median survival time was 29.2 (95% CI, 22.3-45.5) months vs 19.9 (95% CI, 11.6-39.1) months (P = .03), and the 3-year OS rate was 44.3% (95% CI, 34.6%-53.4%) vs 36.7% (95% CI, 23.4%-50.1%) (P = .19). The treatment was well tolerated in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the PCS with HIPEC treatment approach was associated with better long-term survival. When complete PCS is possible, this approach could be a valuable therapy for patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresHyperthermic Intraperitoneal ChemotherapyOvarian NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32840622
PMCPMC7448829
OpenAlexW3080815575

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.