ReviewCancers2024
The Role of Systematic Lymphadenectomy in Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk prediction model of survival in patients with low-grade serous ovarian cancer: a multicenter Cohort study.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the role of systematic lymphadenectomy in low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) and determine its impact on clinical outcomes in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) terms.
methodsA comprehensive, systematic computer literature search on PubMed was performed using the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms: "low grade serous ovarian cancer" AND/OR "lymphadenectomy" AND/OR "staging" AND/OR "ovarian cancer" AND/OR "cytoreduction". Separate searches were performed with MeSH terms on MEDLINE and EMBASE to extract all the relevant literature available. We included only patients with histologically confirmed LGSOC.
resultsThree studies were considered in the quantitative analysis. Systematic lymphadenectomy in LGSOC failed to provide a significant OS or PFS benefit in LGSOC when compared to no lymphadenectomy in the entire (all the stages) population (for OS: HR = 1.15, 95% CI [0.42, 3.18] I2 = 84% and for PFS: HR = 1.46, 95% CI [0.63, 3.41], I2 = 71%), nor did it in the subtype analysis regarding FIGO stages. For FIGO early-stage I-II LGSOC, the DFS data were pooled (HR = 1.48, 95% CI [0.58, 3.78], I2 = 75%). In patients with advanced-stage (FIGO II-IV), we also failed to prove survival benefit for lymphadenectomy in OS (HR = 1.74, 95% CI [0.87, 3.48], I2 = 11%) or DFS (HR = 1.48, 95% CI [0.58, 3.78], I2 = 75%) compared to no lymphadenectomy.
conclusionMore extensive prospective research is mandatory to understand the real impact of lymphadenectomy on survival in LGSOC. The existing literature does not provide strong evidence.
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.