ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Oncologic outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery in early stage epithelial ovarian cancer: a population-based propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of outcomes between fertility-sparing and radical surgery in patients with pathological stage I epithelial ovarian cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2026Article
- Prognostic Evaluation of Fertility-Sparing Surgery in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety of fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) in reproductive women (younger than 50 years) with early epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).
methodsReproductive women diagnosed with stage I EOC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database were identified. Surgeries that did not undergo hysterectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were categorized as FSS, whereas non-FSS included bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance the covariates. Risk factor was identified by COX analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves were performed to evaluate the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).
results3556 patients with stage I EOC were identified and divided into non-FSS group and FSS group. After PSM, 625 pairs of patients with stage I EOC were included. FSS was not inferior to non-FSS in the OS curve [HR 0.9127, 95% CI (0.6971 ~ 0.1.195), P = 0.5174; HR: 0.9378, 95% CI (0.6358 ~ 0.1.383), P = 0.7460] and the CSS curve [HR 0.8284, 95% CI (0.5932 ~ 1.157), P = 0.2949; HR 0.9003, 95% CI (0.5470 ~ 1.482), P = 0.6803] both in overall cohort and in matched cohort. Univariate COX analysis identified older age (45-49), moderate-differentiated to un-differentiation grade, IC stage, bigger tumor size (> 10 cm) and chemotherapy as risk factors of prognostic outcome (P < 0.1). Not only in univariate subgroup analyses but also in bivariate factors subgroup analysis, the evidence was not enough to regard FSS as a harmful factor compared with non-FSS.
conclusionsFertility-sparing surgery was comparable to non-FSS in terms of survival in reproductive women with stage I EOC. Patients with high-risk factors could also consider FSS as an effective alternative compared with non-FSS.
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.