Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38091202›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2024

Surgery for Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

Christina Fotopoulou, Ane Gerda Eriksson, Itai Yagel, Suk-Joon Chang, Myong Cheol Lim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christina FotopoulouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. c.fotopoulou@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6375-9645
Ane Gerda ErikssonDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Itai YagelDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Suk-Joon ChangDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
Myong Cheol LimCenter for Gynecologic Cancer and Center for Clinical Trials, National Cancer Center, Goyang, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo review evidence around the value and challenges of surgery for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (ROC). Both cytoreductive and palliative aspects will be addressed RECENT

findingsProspective and retrospective evidence demonstrates a significantly longer remission derived from the combination of surgical and systemic modalities as opposed to systemic treatment alone in carefully selected ROC-patients who have relapsed more than 6 months from the end of their 1st line platinum-based chemotherapy. Nevertheless, this benefit appears to be limited when total macroscopic tumor clearance is not achieved. Selection algorithms to identify optimal surgical candidates are of paramount importance to prevent surgical morbidity without the equivalent oncological benefit. In the palliative setting, the risks and benefits of salvage surgery need to be counterbalanced with the advances of conservative techniques for optimal care. Well-defined selection algorithms to identify those who will benefit from surgery in the relapsed setting appear to be the key to oncologic and surgical success.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesOvarian cancerProgressionRelapseSecondarySurgerySurvival

Identifiers

PMID38091202
PMCPMC10858815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.