Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32953626›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2020

Surgery

Vito Andrea Capozzi, Andrea Rosati, Luigi Carlo Turco, Giulio Sozzi, Matteo Riccò, Benito Chiofalo, Giuseppe Vizzielli

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Vito Andrea CapozziDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Andrea RosatiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Luigi Carlo TurcoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Giulio SozziDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Matteo RiccòAUSL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia-Department of Public Health, Service for Occupational Health and Safety on the Workplaces, Parma, Italy.
Benito ChiofaloGynecologic Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe VizzielliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITAzienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversity of Palermo · ITUniversity of Parma · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowadays, the best treatment option for ovarian cancer recurrence is often subjective, can vary in the different centers and depend on personal experience. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO)-DESKTOP studies have identified a population of patients who could benefit from secondary surgery. The results of the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG)-0213 study were recently published, which showed no advantage in terms of overall survival (OS) in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian undergoing secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCS) compared to chemotherapy alone. Aim of this narrative review is to summarize the best aspects that can make ovarian cancer recurrence patients suitable for SCS. A narrative review analyzing all the literature of the past 30 years has been performed. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Ovid MEDLINE were used for research. All non-English-language articles have been excluded. The following keywords were searched: 'recurrent ovarian cancer', 'secondary surgery', 'secondary cytoreductive surgery', 'platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer', 'platinum-resistant ovarian cancer'. We divided eligible patients for secondary cytoreduction in relation to the following factors: platinum-sensitivity, AGO-score or Tian model, unresectable lesions, surgical generic contraindication, woman's personal choice. The selection of truly suitable patients for surgery seems an essential requirement for the patient's best therapeutic choice. In case of absent post-surgical residual tumor, good performance status, single recurrence, and platinum-sensitive ovarian recurrence, surgery could be performed.

Indexed as

eligibility criteriaplatinum-sensitivityRecurrent ovarian cancersecondary cytoreductive surgery (SCS)

Identifiers

PMID32953626
PMCPMC7475368
OpenAlexW3034845051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.