ArticleEcancermedicalscience2026
Management of epithelial ovarian cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: a survey of practicing physicians.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate current practices in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). A 27-question survey was distributed to SSA-based physicians who managed OC and were members of the African Organisation for Research and Training in Cancer (AORTIC) via Research Electronic Data Capture. Questions evaluated diagnostics, imaging, surgical capacity, guideline adherence, access and barriers to systemic therapies, genetic testing and palliative care. Survey responses from 58 providers in 25 SSA countries were analysed. Clinical/medical oncologists and gynaecologic oncologists made up 52% and 36% of the respondents, respectively. Harmonised guidelines for SSA and the European Society of Medical Oncology guidelines were the most commonly used guidelines among respondents. Surgeries were performed by gynaecologic oncologists (53%) and general gynaecologists (38%). Complete cytoreductive surgery was the primary surgical goal for 38% of the respondents. Lymphadenectomy was routinely performed in 34% of patients with early-stage disease. The majority of systemic therapies were prescribed by clinical/medical oncologists (76%). Platinum/taxane doublet chemotherapy was the prevalent choice for adjuvant (90%) and neoadjuvant indications (83%). Single-agent gemcitabine was preferred for treating platinum-resistant disease (55%). Bevacizumab was prescribed by 33% of the providers. BRCA testing was limited. Drugs that target BRCA-positive tumours were prescribed by 12% of the respondents. Referral to routine palliative care services for advanced disease was performed by 41% of the respondents. The survey results demonstrate areas of guideline-concordant care for OC in SSA despite several challenges, including limited subspecialty surgical capacity and highlight important remaining gaps. To improve OC outcomes in SSA, increasing gynaecologic oncology capacity, promoting and adopting context-specific guidelines and supporting implementation-focused research require prioritisation.
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.