Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33274616›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2020

Management of gynecological cancers in the COVID-19 era: a survey from Turkey

Duygu Altın, İbrahim Yalçın, Ghanim Khatib, Mine Dağgez Keleşoğlu, Sedat Akgöl, Ayşe Büşra Önder, İlker Kahramanoğlu, Tevfik Güvenal, Samet Topuz, Fuat Demirkıran

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Gynecologic radiation therapy in low and middle income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2022
    Review
  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

10 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Duygu AltınClinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ordu University Training and Research Hospital, Ordu, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-9072-9393
İbrahim YalçınClinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Şanlıurfa Training and Research Hospital, Şanlıurfa, TurkeyORCID 0000-0003-3469-1084
Ghanim KhatibDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Çukurova University Faculty of Medicine, Adana, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-0163-1141
Mine Dağgez KeleşoğluDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erciyes University Faculty of Medicine, Kayseri, TurkeyORCID 0000-0001-5266-9652
Sedat AkgölClinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Health Sciences Turkey, Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, TurkeyORCID 0000-0001-8609-3049
Ayşe Büşra ÖnderClinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, TurkeyORCID 0000-0003-4170-3768
İlker KahramanoğluDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, TurkeyORCID 0000-0003-0956-1050
Tevfik GüvenalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Manisa Celal Bayar University Faculty of Medicine, Manisa, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-1466-9990
Samet TopuzDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, İstanbul University İstanbul Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-9069-0185
Fuat DemirkıranDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-0439-2502
Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa · TRBakırköy Dr.Sadi Konuk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TRCukurova University · TRErciyes University · TRIstanbul University · TRManisa Celal Bayar University · TROrdu University · TRSağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TRŞanlıurfa Mehmet Akif İnan Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to investigate how gynecologic oncologists modified their patient management during Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in Turkey. Material and Methods: An online survey was sent to gynecologic oncology specialists and fellows in Turkey. It included management questions about strategies for newly diagnosed or recurrent endometrial, cervical, ovarian and vulvar cancer during the pandemic. Participants were asked if treatment of these cancers can be delayed or not and, if yes, the duration of delay. Results: 32.9% of surgeons prescribed oral or intrauterine progesterone for early stage, low-grade endometrial cancer. Conversely, 65.7% and 45.7% of the most surgeons did not change their management for early stage high-grade and advanced stage endometrial cancers respectively, as they perform surgery. 58% and 67.1% of the surgeons continued to prefer standard surgical treatment for microinvasive and early stage cervical cancers, respectively. Radiotherapy was preferred administered with hypofractionated doses for locally advanced cervical cancer (57.1%). While 67.1% of surgeons operated early stage ovarian cancer patients, 50% administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) to all advanced stage ovarian cancers and 50% administered more cycles of NACT in preference to interval debulking surgery. 93.7% of the surgeons responded that treatment should not be delayed beyond eight weeks. Conclusion: Most Turkish gynecologic oncologists modified their management of gynecologic cancers due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While chemotherapy was preferred for ovarian cancer, postponement of the surgery, with or without non-surgical options, was considered for early stage, low-grade endometrial cancer. Treatment of gynecologic cancers should be decided on a case by case basis, taking into account local COVID-19 infection rates and availability of health facilities. Prognosis is also an important consideration if delay is contemplated. Standard treatment and normal time-frames should be used if possible. If not, a postponement for a maximum of eight weeks or referral to another center were acceptable alternatives.

Indexed as

COVID-19gynecologic oncologysurvey

Identifiers

PMID33274616
PMCPMC7726458
OpenAlexW3108115953

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.