Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33067742›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2021

The Role of Secondary Cytoreductive Surgery in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Claudia Marchetti, Anna Fagotti, Vincenzo Tombolini, Giovanni Scambia, Francesca De Felice

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Claudia MarchettiDepartment of Woman and Child Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Anna FagottiDepartment of Woman and Child Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo TomboliniDepartment of Radiotherapy, Policlinico Umberto I, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni ScambiaDepartment of Woman and Child Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Francesca De FeliceDepartment of Radiotherapy, Policlinico Umberto I, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy. fradefelice@hotmail.it.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhase 3 randomized clinical trials have been designed to compare secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by systemic therapy with systemic therapy alone for management of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. This study aimed to compare differences in clinical outcomes between these two treatment approaches.

methodsThe PRISMA statement was applied. Only phase 3 randomized clinical trials were included in the final analysis.

resultsThree randomized clinical trials (n = 1250 patients) were identified. Secondary cytoreductive surgery was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) improvement than systemic therapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 95% CI, 0.61-0.78; p < 0.001). The PFS benefit was greater for the complete resection subpopulation (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48-0.66; p < 0.001). The HR of overall survival (OS) was similar between the groups (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.10; p = 0.37), but it was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.91) in favor of the complete resection subpopulation.

conclusionThis meta-analysis showed secondary cytoreductive surgery as superior to systemic therapy alone in terms of PFS. The PFS and OS benefits were particularly observed for complete surgical resection. The impact on OS in the general population remains to be proven.

Indexed as

Cytoreduction Surgical ProceduresOvarian NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProgression-Free Survival

Identifiers

PMID33067742
OpenAlexW3093048520

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.