Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33389113›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2021

Concordance of laparoscopic and laparotomic peritoneal cancer index using a two-step surgical protocol to select patients for cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer.

Martina Aida Angeles, Federico Migliorelli, Mathilde Del, Carlos Martínez-Gómez, Manon Daix, Sarah Bétrian, Erwan Gabiache, Gisèle Balagué, Sophie Leclerc, Eliane Mery and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martina Aida AngelesDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, 1 Avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
Federico MigliorelliDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal Des Vallées de L'Ariège, St Jean de Verges, France.
Mathilde DelDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, 1 Avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
Carlos Martínez-GómezDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, 1 Avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
Manon DaixDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, 1 Avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
Sarah BétrianDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Erwan GabiacheDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Gisèle BalaguéDepartment of Radiology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Sophie LeclercDepartment of Anesthesiology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Eliane MeryDepartment of Anatomopathology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Laurence GladieffDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Gwénaël FerronDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, 1 Avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
Alejandra MartinezDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT)-Oncopole, 1 Avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France. Martinez.Alejandra@iuct-oncopole.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4401-3084
Institut Claudius Regaud · FRInserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of our study was to assess concordance of staging laparoscopy and cytoreductive surgery (CRS) peritoneal cancer index (PCI) when applying a two-step surgical protocol. We also aimed to evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy to triage patients for complete cytoreduction, and to define optimal time between staging laparoscopy and CRS.

methodsWe designed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy followed by a CRS a few weeks later (two-step surgical protocol), from January 2010 to April 2019. Only patients selected for complete cytoreduction, and with available PCI score from both surgeries were included. PCI concordance was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

resultsDuring the study period 543 patients underwent a laparoscopic staging for ovarian carcinomatosis. Among them, 43 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. ICC between laparoscopic and laparotomic PCI was 0.54. After applying the linear regression equation: laparoscopic PCI + 0.2 x [days between surgeries] + 2, ICC increased to 0.79. Completeness cytoreduction score and laparoscopic PCI were significantly associated (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03-1.57, p = 0.03). AUC of laparoscopic PCI to predict complete cytoreduction was 0.90.

conclusionConcordance between laparoscopic PCI assessment and PCI score at the end of CRS is fair within a two-step surgical management. Laparoscopic assessment underestimates final PCI score by two points, and this difference increases with the delay between both surgeries. Diagnostic laparoscopy can adequately select patients for CRS, and optimal time to perform it is no more than 10 days after laparoscopy.

Indexed as

AgedCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLaparotomyMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPeritoneal NeoplasmsProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesAdvanced ovarian cancerComplete cytoreductionLaparoscopic stagingPeritoneal carcinomatosisResectabilitySugarbaker index

Identifiers

PMID33389113
OpenAlexW3120646775

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.