ReviewCancers2025
The Role of Cytoreductive Surgery in Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer (PROC): A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2025. 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.
- Integrative multi-transcriptomics and network pharmacology reveal natural therapeutics as anti-cancer agents targeting AURKA for ovarian cancer treatment.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2026Article
- High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma in the Genomics Era: Current Applications, Challenges and Future Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Investigating the diversity of intratumoral microbiota in high-grade serous ovarian cancer with varying platinum sensitivity.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Preparation of Iron oxide/palladium nanoparticles modified with carbon quantum dots (Pd@CQD@FeScientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivePlatinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) has limited therapeutic options, and the role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in improving survival outcomes remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the oncological benefit of CRS on PROC patients and the associated surgical morbidity and mortality.
methodsWe followed a prospective protocol according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase till October 2024. We used a "Population Intervention Comparator Outcomes (PICO)" framework. Our population included women with epithelial PROC who underwent CRS with/without chemotherapy. Our outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free-survival (PFS), post-operative morbidity and mortality and Quality of Life.
resultsOur search yielded 6590 citations; six studies (N = 155 patients) were included. There is limited evidence available on the role of CRS in PROC, with notable variation in reported outcomes and outcomes' measures; therefore, we were unable to perform quantitative synthesis. CRS demonstrated survival benefits in well-selected PROC patients, particularly those with limited, isolated recurrences, low tumour burden, and good performance status. Complete resection (R0) was associated with significantly longer OS/PFS compared to those who had suboptimal surgeries (R1/R2).
conclusionsCRS seems to extend survival in carefully selected PROC patients, especially those with limited disease spread and favourable surgical profiles. Nevertheless, CRS carries substantial surgical risks, and its benefits appear contingent upon achieving R0. Further prospective trials with standardised patient selection criteria are needed to define CRS's role in PROC. At present, CRS in PROC should be considered within a multidisciplinary approach in specialised gynaecological oncology centres, with the careful assessment of patient-specific risk factors and potential for R0 resection.
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.