Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41393149›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Tertiary cytoreduction for recurrence of ovarian CANCER patients after intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Giusi Santangelo, Enrico Ciminello, Tullio Golia d'Augè, Violante Di Donato, Federica Tomao, Innocenza Palaia, Margherita Fischetti, Giorgio Bogani, Ludovico Muzii, Pierluigi Benedetti Panici and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Giusi SantangeloDepartment of Gynecological, Italy - Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Enrico CiminelloItalian National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Tullio Golia d'AugèDepartment of Gynecological, Italy - Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Violante Di DonatoDepartment of Gynecological, Italy - Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Federica TomaoDepartment of Gynecological, Italy - Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Innocenza PalaiaDepartment of Gynecological, Italy - Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Margherita FischettiDepartment of Gynecological, Italy - Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giorgio BoganiGynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Ludovico MuziiDepartment of Gynecological, Italy - Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Pierluigi Benedetti PaniciDepartment of Gynecological, Italy - Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giorgia PerniolaDepartment of Gynecological, Italy - Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated the feasibility, complications, and outcomes of a tertiary cytoreduction after second-line treatment with IP (intraperitoneal) versus IV (intravenous) chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) patients. Methods: We retrospectively collected data of patients treated with an optimal tertiary cytoreduction. At the second relapse, the patients underwent optimal secondary surgery followed by IP chemotherapy (case group) or by IV chemotherapy (control group). Differences in treatment-related morbidity rate, pattern of recurrence, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated by Mann-Whitney and Chi-Squared. Kaplan-Meier and frailty model for recurrent events were used to assess statistical significance in differences of disease-free survival. Results: Charts of 60 patients with a second ROC were identified. The patients with extensive peritoneal carcinomatosis or an inaccessible abdominal cavity were excluded. Twenty-nine patients (48.3%) who underwent optimal tertiary cytoreduction were included: 16 and 13 patients were from the IP and IV groups, respectively. At the second relapse, 56.2% of patients in the IP group and 61.5% in the IV group presented oligometastatic disease, respectively. The adhesions were significantly more represented in the IP group than the IV group ( Conclusion: The present study showed that IP chemotherapy does not represent an obstacle to surgery in ROC patients. The surgery after IP is feasible. No significant differences in terms of complications and outcomes were observed in the two groups.

Indexed as

adhesion scoreintraperitoneal chemotherapyintravenous chemotherapyrecurrent ovarian cancertertiary cytoreduction

Identifiers

PMID41393149
PMCPMC12699984

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.