Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42230470›Full record

ReviewAnnals of surgical oncology2026

Predictive Features Specific to FIGO IIIA1 Ovarian Cancer: What Drives Prognosis.

Matteo Bruno, Davide Arrigo, Marco Paratore, Giustina Lopopolo, Valerio Gallotta, Andrea Rosati, Marco D'Indinosante, Anna Fagotti

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

8 authors.

Matteo Bruno *Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Davide Arrigo *Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Marco ParatoreDipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Giustina LopopoloDipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Valerio GallottaDipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Andrea RosatiDipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Marco D'IndinosanteDipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy. marco.dindinosante@guest.policlinicogemelli.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6588-8686
Anna FagottiDipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFIGO stage IIIA1 ovarian cancer, defined by lymph node-only metastasis, represents a biologically distinct pattern of spread within epithelial ovarian cancer. Patients with IIIA1 disease experience more favorable outcomes than those with peritoneal dissemination; however, the prognostic determinants within this subgroup remain incompletely defined and underexplored.

methodsA narrative review was conducted by using concept‑based searches. Eligible reports included those specifically addressing stage IIIA1 or providing extractable node‑positive subsets within stage III cohorts. Given heterogeneity in surgical eras, lymphadenectomy practices, and histologic composition, no quantitative pooling was performed.

resultsNodal size and the IIIA1(i)/(ii) subdivision did not consistently correlate with survival. In contrast, nodal topography showed signals of prognostic relevance in selected cohorts. The lymph node ratio (LNR) emerged as the most robust determinant of outcome. Systematic pelvic and para‑aortic lymphadenectomy, typically involving retrieval of ≥10-20 nodes, was linked to improved staging accuracy and long‑term survival. Tumor microenvironment features provided additional prognostic stratification, while IIIA1‑specific molecular data remained limited.

conclusionsIn FIGO IIIA1 ovarian cancer, nodal topography and burden represent the most reliable prognostic indicators. Systematic lymphadenectomy appears beneficial in appropriately selected patients, and tumor microenvironment features offer complementary risk stratification. Future studies should focus on genomically characterized IIIA1 cohorts to refine risk‑adapted surgical and maintenance strategies.

Indexed as

Lymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesOvarian NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisNeoplasm StagingPrognosisEpithelial ovarian cancerHost inflammatory markersLymphadenectomyLymph node ratioNodal metastasisPara‑aortic lymph nodesPrognostic factors

Identifiers

PMID42230470
PMCPMC13452780

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.