ArticleInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2024
Physician-reported patient involvement and treatment decisions in first-line ovarian cancer in the USA and Europe.
Article in International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- HRR gene promoter methylation-guided nomogram predicts PARP inhibitor efficacy and progression-free survival in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Article
- Clinical and molecular determinants of response to maintenance olaparib for primary and recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Patient-reported outcomes after long-term period of niraparib maintenance in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a prospective, multicenter cohort study.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesReal-world data evaluating how approvals of novel treatment regimens for ovarian cancer have impacted the treatment paradigm, including first-line maintenance, are lacking. This analysis aimed to describe treatment patterns for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in Europe and the USA in the first-line maintenance setting. Patient characteristics, biomarker testing rates, and drivers of treatment choice were also evaluated.
methodsA retrospective chart review study of electronic medical records in Europe and the USA was conducted for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (June 1, 2017-May 31, 2020), in line with Healthcare Market Research guidelines. Eligible physicians extracted data from electronic medical records by completing standardized patient record forms, including questions on patient involvement in treatment decisions. Patients with advanced (stage III/IV) disease were stratified by country and diagnosis date to provide information on treatment patterns.
resultsPatient record forms for 7072 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were completed by 416 physicians; 5386 patients had stage III/IV ovarian cancer. Over time, the percentage of patients who were tested for
conclusionsThis real-world study showed that treatment patterns for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer varied by country. Rates of physician-reported patient involvement in treatment decisions in the first-line adjuvant and maintenance treatment settings for ovarian cancer were low, highlighting an unmet need for initiatives to improve patient involvement in shared decision-making regarding maintenance therapy selection.
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.