ArticleJournal of minimally invasive gynecology2022
Survival and Surgical Approach among Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.
Article in Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Minimally invasive surgery in advanced and recurrent ovarian cancer: current evidence and future directions.Current opinion in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of surgical approach on overall survival (OS) for women with advanced, epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and determine the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with surgical approach.
designThe primary exposure was surgical approach to interval cytoreduction, minimally invasive versus open, and was evaluated by intention to treat. Primary outcome was OS. Associations were examined using Chi-squared tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and multivariate logistic regression. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards.
settingThe National Cander Database was used to identify eligible patients. PATIENTS: Women diagnosed with stage IIIC/IV EOC from 2010-2016.
interventionsPatients were included if they were treated with NACT within 90 days of diagnosis before interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsA total of 8085 women were identified; 6713 (83%) underwent open interval CRS, and 1372 (17%) underwent minimally invasive interval CRS. The proportion undergoing minimally invasive CRS after NACT increased from 2% in 2010 to 11% in 2016, a nearly 6-fold increase. There was no difference in OS between women who underwent minimally invasive and open interval CRS (median OS 36.5 vs 35.2 months, HR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.86-1.04). After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables, including age, race, ethnicity, income, and Charlson/Deyo score, no difference in OS was observed (HR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.86-1.04). Women of older age (OR 1.35, 95% CI, 1.05-1.74) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.46, 95% CI, 1.14-1.88) had increased odds of receiving minimally invasive CRS after NACT, whereas low income (<$38000/year) women had decreased odds (OR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.60-0.97, p = .03). Length of stay differed for patients undergoing minimally invasive versus open interval CRS (3 vs 5 days, p <.01), but there was no difference in need for postoperative readmission.
conclusionsMinimally invasive CRS has similar survival outcomes to open CRS among women with EOC who have undergone NACT.
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.