ArticleBMC cancer2025
Patients with macroscopic lymph node metastasis expect poor prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: a retrospective cohort study based on a single gynecological team.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. 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.
- Multimodal data-based graph convolutional networks for predicting outcomes in ovarian cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Single-cell omics in tumor lymph node metastasis: mechanisms and therapeutic implications.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Predicting preoperative lymph node metastasis in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer by using intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medical imaging · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the prognostic impact of metastatic lymph nodes (MLNs) on advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study using data from patients managed by a single gynecological team between June 2012 and June 2023. Among EOC patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC or IV disease, patients who received NACT and who underwent complete cytoreduction during interval debulking surgery were included (the NACT cohort), together with patients who received primary debulking surgery (PDS, including those with both complete and incomplete cytoreduction). Clinically suspicious lymph nodes at diagnosis and/or debulking surgeries were resected. Differences in terms of clinicopathological features, survival profiles, and recurrence patterns were analyzed between groups with different lymph node statuses.
resultsThe NACT cohort comprised 166 patients (53.6% underwent lymphadenectomy), of whom 58 presented with MLNs (the MLN group) and 108 did not (the NLN group). Among those who underwent lymphadenectomy, a median of 24 pelvic lymph nodes and 13 para-aortic lymph nodes were resected. The MLN group was significantly associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS) and time to platinum-resistant recurrence (TTPR), even when adjusted by multivariate models. The hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was 1.90 (1.06-3.41) for the multivariate PFS analysis and 2.50 (1.22-5.13) for the multivariate TTPR analysis. For the PDS cohort (143 patients, 68.5% underwent lymphadenectomy), a median of 25 pelvic lymph nodes and 14 para-aortic lymph nodes were resected. The MLN group (66 patients) manifested non-inferior PFS and TTPR outcomes compared to the NLN group (77 patients).
conclusionsMLNs may have a negative impact on the prognosis of patients receiving NACT. For such patients, PDS is a preferred choice to delay recurrence and platinum resistance.
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.