Observational studyDiagnostic pathology2022
Comparison of clinical behavior between mucinous ovarian carcinoma with infiltrative and expansile invasion and high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma: a retrospective analysis.
Observational study in Diagnostic pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative unveiling of mucinous ovarian cancer subtypes: Clinical and CT features.European journal of radiology · 2025Article
- The prognostic value of growth pattern-based grading for mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Genetic analysis for mucinous ovarian carcinoma with infiltrative and expansile invasion and mucinous borderline tumor: a retrospective analysis.Diagnostic pathology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the clinicopathological factors and prognosis of mucinous carcinoma (MC) with infiltrative invasion, MC with expansile invasion, and high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC).
methodsCases of MC and HGSC between 1984 and 2019 were identified. The clinicopathological factors and prognosis of MC with infiltrative invasion or expansile invasion and HGSC were retrospectively compared. Although our present study included cases in our previous studies, we extended observational period when analysis was performed. Accordingly, our study added increased cases and survival analysis was newly conducted.
resultsAfter pathological review, 27 cases of MC with infiltrative invasion, 25 cases of MC with expansile invasion, and 219 cases of HGSC were included. MC had a better prognosis in terms of progression-free survival (PFS, p < 0.01) and overall survival (OS, p < 0.01) than HGSC for all International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages; however, multivariate analysis did not show statistical differences in PFS and OS. There were no statistically significant differences in PFS and OS for all FIGO stages between MC with infiltrative invasion and HGSC. However, in cases with FIGO stages II to IV, MC with infiltrative invasion had worse PFS (p < 0.01) and OS (p < 0.01) than HGSC. In univariate analysis, MC with infiltrative invasion was a worse prognostic factor for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.83, p < 0.01) and OS (HR 3.83, p < 0.01) than HGSC. Compared with HGSC, MC with expansile invasion had better PFS (p < 0.01) and OS (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that MC with expansile invasion was a better prognostic factor for PFS (HR 0.17, p < 0.01) and OS (HR 0.18, p = 0.03) than HGSC.
conclusionsCompared to the prognosis of HGSC, that of MC was different according to the invasive pattern and FIGO stage. Therefore, future study may be needed to consider this association.
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.