SynthesisInternational journal of clinical oncology2023
A single institution's experience with minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, and a systematic meta-analysis of the literature.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery in borderline ovarian tumor and ovarian cancer: a retrospective comparative study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Management of Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.O&G open · 2024Review
- Effects of different surgical extents on prognosis of patients with malignant ovarian sex cord-stromal tumors: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study assesses the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for well-selected epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients.
methodsWe performed a review of data prospectively collected from a single center from 2017 to 2022. Only patients with histologically confirmed EOC, with a tumor diameter of less than 10 cm, were eligible. We also performed a meta-analysis of similar studies comparing the outcomes of laparoscopy and laparotomy. We used MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies) to assess the risk of bias and calculated the odds ratio or mean difference.
resultsEighteen patients were included; 13 in re-staging group, four in PDS group, and one in IDS group. All achieved complete cytoreduction. One case was converted to laparotomy. The median number of removed pelvic lymph nodes was 25 (range 16-34), and 32 (range 19-44) for para-aortic nodes. There were two (15.4%) intraoperative urinary tract injuries. The median follow-up was 35 months (range 1-53). Recurrence was observed in one case (7.7%). Thirteen articles for early-stage ovarian cancer were included in our meta-analysis. Analysis of the pooled results found that MIS had a higher frequency of spillage (OR, 2.15; 95% CI 1.27-3.64). No differences were observed in recurrence, complications, or up-staging.
conclusionsOur experience supports the possibility of conducting MIS for EOC in well-selected patients. Except for spillage, our meta-analysis findings are consistent with previous reports, the majority of which were also retrospective. Ultimately, randomized clinical trials will be needed to authenticate the safety.
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.