ArticleGynecologic oncology2021
Exploring the clinical significance of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma associated with advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer: A Memorial Sloan Kettering Team Ovary Study.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tubal epithelial alterations: evolving concepts.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Review
- Serous Tubal Intraepithelial Carcinoma (STIC): A Review of the Literature on the Incidence at the Time of Prophylactic Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A Protocol for the Acquisition of Comprehensive Proteomics Data from Single Cases Using Formalin-Fixed Paraffin Embedded Sections.Methods and protocols · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical significance and genomic associations of concurrent serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) with high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) of the ovary in women undergoing primary debulking surgery (PDS).
methodsAll patients who underwent PDS for HGSC between 01/2015 and 12/2018 were captured in a prospectively maintained institutional database. Patients were categorized based on the presence or absence of concurrent STIC noted on final pathology. Demographic, perioperative, and outcomes data were collected, and groups were compared using standard statistical tests. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. For comparison of differences in somatic alterations between the two cohorts, specimens were sequenced using MSK-IMPACT.
resultsOf 306 eligible patients, 87 (28%) had a concurrent STIC lesion (+STIC) and 219 (72%) did not (no-STIC). Demographics and clinicopathological factors were similar between the two cohorts, except for a significantly higher median preoperative CA-125 level in the no-STIC group (423 U/mL vs. 321 U/mL; p=0.029). There were no significant differences in median PFS (22.7 months [95%CI: 18.9-28.4] vs. 27.7 months [95%CI: 25.5-30.5]; p=0.126) and 3- year OS rate (81% [95%CI: 70-88%] vs. 85% [95%CI: 78-90%]; p=0.392) between +STIC and no-STIC patients, respectively. Targeted DNA-sequencing via MSK-IMPACT showed a similar distribution of driver mutations or structural genetic alterations, and affected genetic signaling pathways were similar between the cohorts.
conclusionsThere were no identifiable clinical and genetic differences in patients with HGSC and concurrent STIC. These data suggest a comparable, if not identical, disease process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.