The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Survival Effect of Maximal Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma During the Platinum Era: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relative effect of percent maximal cytoreductive surgery and other prognostic variables on survival among cohorts of patients with advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-one cohorts of patients with stage III or IV ovarian carcinoma (6,885 patients) were identified from articles in MEDLINE (1989 through 1998). Linear regression models, with weighted correlation calculations, were used to assess the effects on log median survival time of the proportion of each cohort undergoing maximal cytoreduction, dose-intensity of the platinum compound administered, proportion of patients with stage IV disease, median age, and year of publication. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant positive correlation between percent maximal cytoreduction and log median survival time, and this correlation remained significant after controlling for all other variables (P < .001). Each 10% increase in maximal cytoreduction was associated with a 5.5% increase in median survival time. When actuarial survival was estimated, cohorts with ≤ 25% maximal cytoreduction had a mean weighted median survival time of 22.7 months, whereas cohorts with more than 75% maximal cytoreduction had a mean weighted median survival time of 33.9 months—an increase of 50%. The relationship between platinum dose-intensity and log median survival time was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: During the platinum era, maximal cytoreduction was one of the most powerful determinants of cohort survival among patients with stage III or IV ovarian carcinoma. Consistent referral of patients with apparent advanced ovarian cancer to expert centers for primary surgery may be the best means currently available for improving overall survival.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Colombo, N., Sessa, C., du Bois, A., Ledermann, J., McCluggage, W. G., McNeish, I., Morice, P., Pignata, S., Ray-Coquard, I., Vergote, I., et al. (2019) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz062 · Cited by 1,197
Evaluation of DNA from the Papanicolaou test to detect ovarian and endometrial cancers.
Kinde, I., Bettegowda, C., Wang, Y., Wu, J., Agrawal, N., Shih, I.-M., Kurman, R., Dao, F., Levine, D. A., Giuntoli, R., et al. (2013) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3004952 · Cited by 327
Diagnosis and Treatment of Ovarian Cancer
Orr, B., & Edwards, R. P. (2018) · Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.hoc.2018.07.010 · Cited by 322
Kyrgiou, M., Salanti, G., Pavlidis, N., Paraskevaidis, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2006) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djj443 · Cited by 187
Ultrasensitive tumour-penetrating nanosensors of protease activity
Kwon, E. J., Dudani, J. S., & Bhatia, S. N. (2017) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-017-0054 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Bristow, R. E., Tomacruz, R. S., Armstrong, D. K., Trimble, E. L., & Montz, F. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2002-03-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1248-1259
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2099521317
- Cited by
- 2,312
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Survival Effect of Maximal Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma During the Platinum Era: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2002.20.5.1248
- The paper
- Bristow, R. E., Tomacruz, R. S., Armstrong, D. K., Trimble, E. L., & Montz, F. J. (2002). Survival Effect of Maximal Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma During the Platinum Era: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2002.20.5.1248
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.