ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2022
A prospective cross-sectional survey comparing patient and provider expectations regarding ovarian cancer prognosis.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trends in hospice referral timing and location among individuals dying of ovarian cancer: persistence of missed opportunities.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is limited data comparing patient and physician expectations regarding ovarian cancer prognosis. Our primary objective was to compare physician and patient estimates of survival to 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years; secondary objectives included comparing provider and patient responses on the likelihood of requiring future treatments and categorizing patient and provider preferences regarding communication about prognosis. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional survey was delivered to 10 gynecologic oncology providers and 50 adult ovarian cancer patients from November 2015-April 2016 at one institution. Descriptive statistics were used to categorize survey answers and compare survey answers between patients and providers; multivariable logistic regression evaluated patient survey responses. Results: All providers (100%) believed treating providers should discuss prognosis and 90% reported having prognostic conversations with patients, compared to 63%, 37%, and 4% of patients who reported discussing prognosis, living wills/advance directives, and palliative care/hospice services, respectively, with their provider. Compared to their provider, patients gave significantly lower estimations of requiring any future therapy (mean score 84.6 vs 74, p <.001) and future chemotherapy (mean score 84.1 vs 69.8, p <.001) and significantly higher estimations of requiring future surgery (mean score 23.3 vs 40, p <.001), achieving remission (mean score 33.5 vs 47.5, p =.009), survival to 1 year (mean score 77.1 vs 86.4, p =.002), and survival to 5 years (mean score 40.5 vs 61.3, p <.001). Conclusions: Although gynecologic oncology providers believe it is important to discuss prognosis and end-of-life care, there are gaps in communication, knowledge, and expectations between providers and ovarian cancer patients.
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.