Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 705

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effect of Debulking Surgery after Induction Chemotherapy on the Prognosis in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Open access
van der Burg, Maria E.L., van Lent, Mat, Buyse, Marc, Kobierska, Anna, Colombo, Nicoletta, Favalli, Giuseppe, Lacave, Angel J., Nardi, Mario, Renard, Josette, Pecorelli, Sergio·1995·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the value of primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer is beyond doubt, the value of debulking surgery after induction chemotherapy has not yet been defined. In this randomized study we investigated the effect on survival of debulking surgery. METHODS: Eligible patients had residual lesions measuring more than 1 cm in diameter after primary surgery. After three cycles of cyclophosphamide and cisplatin, these patients were randomly assigned to undergo either debulking surgery or no surgery, followed by further cycles of cyclophosphamide and cisplatin. The study end points were progression-free and overall survival. At surgery 65 percent of the patients had lesions measuring more than 1 cm. In 45 percent of this group, the lesions were reduced surgically to less than 1 cm. RESULTS: Of the 319 patients who underwent randomization, 278 could be evaluated (140 patients who underwent surgery and 138 patients who did not). Progression-free and overall survival were both significantly longer in the group that underwent surgery (P = 0.01). The difference in median survival was six months. The survival rate at two years was 56 percent for the group that underwent surgery and 46 percent for the group that did not. In the multivariate analysis, debulking surgery was an independent prognostic factor (P = 0.012). Overall, after adjustment for all other prognostic factors, surgery reduced the risk of death by 33 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 10 to 50 percent; P = 0.008). Surgery was not associated with death or severe morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Debulking surgery significantly lengthened progression-free and overall survival. The risk of death was reduced by one third, after adjustment for a variety of prognostic factors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199503093321002

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 705

Metadata

Authors
van der Burg, M. E. L., van Lent, M., Buyse, M., Kobierska, A., Colombo, N., Favalli, G., Lacave, A. J., Nardi, M., Renard, J., & Pecorelli, S.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1995-03-09
Volume
332
Issue
10
Pages
629-634
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2316952834
Cited by
705
References
1
FWCI
12.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Effect of Debulking Surgery after Induction Chemotherapy on the Prognosis in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199503093321002
The paper
van der Burg, M. E. L., van Lent, M., Buyse, M., Kobierska, A., Colombo, N., Favalli, G., Lacave, A. J., Nardi, M., Renard, J., & Pecorelli, S. (1995). The Effect of Debulking Surgery after Induction Chemotherapy on the Prognosis in Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199503093321002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.