ArticleCancers2022
Investigating the Impact of Ultra-Radical Surgery on Survival in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Using Population-Based Data in a Multicentre UK Study.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- A Cost Consequence Analysis of Seven Diagnostic Strategies for Ovarian Cancer: A Model-Based Economic Evaluation.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic tests for ovarian cancer in premenopausal women with non-specific symptoms (ROCkeTS): prospective, multicentre, cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes in Ovarian Carcinosarcoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 90 Cases.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- P-POSSUM Falls Short: Predicting Morbidity in Ovarian Cancer (OC) Cytoreductive Surgery.Cancers · 2025Article
- Implementation of extensive cytoreductive surgery protocol in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Real-world data on surgical treatment distribution and survival of the whole patient cohort; a single center experience.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Worldwide barriers of optimal surgical care provision in advanced ovarian cancer.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Review
- Regionalizing ovarian cancer cytoreduction to high-volume centers and the impact on patient travel in New York State.Gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- The emergence of DNAM-1 as the facilitator of NK cell-mediated killing in ovarian cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Article
- Chemotherapy Response Score in Ovarian Cancer Patients: An Overview of Its Clinical Utility.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
17 authors at 15 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated URS and impact on survival in whole patient cohorts with AOC treated within gynaecological cancer centres that participated in the previously presented SOCQER 2 study. National cancer registry datasets were used to identify FIGO Stage 3,4 and unknown stage patients from 11 cancer centres that had previously participated in the SOCQER2 study. Patient outcomes’ association with surgical ethos were evaluated using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards. Centres were classified into three groups based on their surgical complexity scores (SCS); those practicing mainly low complexity, (5/11 centres with >70% low SCS procedures, 759 patients), mainly intermediate (3/11, 35−50% low SCS, 356 patients), or mainly high complexity surgery (3/11, >35% high SCS, 356 patients). Surgery rates were 43.2% vs. 58.4% vs. 60.9%. across mainly low, intermediate and high SCS centres, respectively, p < 0.001. Combined surgery and chemotherapy rates were 39.2% vs. 51.8% vs. 38.3% p < 0.000 across mainly low, intermediate and high complexity groups, respectively. Median survival was 23.1 (95% CI 19.0 to 27.2) vs. 22.0 (95% CI 17.6 to 26.3) vs. 17.9 months (95% CI 15.7 to 20.1), p = 0.043 in mainly high SCS, intermediate, and low SCS centres, respectively. In an age and deprivation adjusted model, compared to patients in the high SCS centres, patients in the low SCS group had an HR of 1.21 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.40) for death. Mainly high/intermediate SCS centres have significantly higher surgery rates and better survival at a population level. Centres that practice mainly low complexity surgery should change practice. This study provides support for the utilization of URS for patients with advanced OC.
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.