ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2026
Radiotherapy patterns of care for recurrent ovarian cancer by gynecologic and radiation oncologists: a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group study (KGOG-3064S1).
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate perceptual and practical differences regarding radiotherapy (RT) for recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) among gynecologic oncologists (GOs) and radiation oncologists (ROs) in Korea.
methodsAn anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted from June 5 to September 5, 2024, targeting experienced members of the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group and Korean Radiation Oncology Group. A structured questionnaire with approximately 25 main items covered 4 domains: demographics, perceptions/attitudes, practice patterns, and clinical case scenarios.
resultsThis study included 116 oncologists (80 GOs and 36 ROs; 47.1% and 45.6% response rate, respectively). Demographic characteristics (age, clinical experience, and patient volume) differed between groups (p<0.05). Although 68.8% of GOs and 91.7% of ROs considered RT effective, their primary goals differed: GOs prioritized local control (78.8%) and palliation (15.0%), whereas ROs emphasized local control (66.7%) and consolidation (22.2%) (p=0.016). Platinum-sensitive ROC, specific ROC subtypes, localized abdominal recurrence, and the definitions of oligometastasis (p<0.05) varied between GOs and ROs. Among GOs, 68% had partial knowledge of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), citing low side effects (65%) as an advantage and limited indications (81%) as a disadvantage. Among ROs, SABR doses and fractionation protocols were relatively consistent for lung, liver, and spine lesions, whereas approaches varied significantly for abdominal lesions (p=0.029).
conclusionAlthough most oncologists recognize RT as effective for ROC, substantial differences in perception and clinical practice exist between GOs and ROs, highlighting the need for enhanced multidisciplinary collaboration and stronger clinical evidence to establish standardized treatment strategies for ROC.
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.