MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Primary or Interval Debulking? Five Categories of Patients in View of the Results of Randomized Trials and Tumor Biology: Primary Debulking Surgery and Interval Debulking Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer

2016· review· en· W2309664335 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebulkingMedicineOvarian cancerRandomized controlled trialClinical trialOncologyInternal medicineCancerSerous fluidSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment of stage III and IV advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) consists of primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy. Since the publication of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/National Cancer Institute of Canada trial, clinical practice has changed and many AOC patients are now treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). The best option remains unclear. Ovarian cancer is a heterogenic disease. Should we use the diversity in biology of the tumor and patterns of tumor localization to better stratify patients between both approaches? METHODS: This analysis was based on results of five phase III randomized controlled trials on PDS and IDS in AOC patients, three Cochrane reviews, and four meta-analyses. RESULTS: There is still no evidence that NACT-IDS is superior to PDS. Clinical status, tumor biology, and chemosensitivity should be taken into account to individualize surgical approach. Nonserous (type 1) tumors with favorable prognosis are less chemosensitive, and omitting optimal PDS will lead to less favorable outcome. For patients with advanced serous ovarian cancer (type 2) associated with severe comorbidity or low performance status, NACT-IDS is the preferred option. CONCLUSION: We propose stratifying AOC patients into five categories according to patterns of tumor spread (reflecting the biologic behavior), response to chemotherapy, and prognosis to make a more rational decision between PDS and NACT-IDS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Trial results regarding effect and timing of debulking surgery on survival of patients with advanced ovarian cancer have been inconsistent and hence difficult to interpret. This review examines all randomized trials on primary and interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, including the results of the newly published CHORUS (chemotherapy or upfront surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer) trial. On the basis of findings presented in this review and in view of recent molecular data on the heterogeneity of ovarian tumors, we propose prognostic categorization for patients with advanced ovarian cancer to better distinguish those who would optimally benefit from primary debulking from those who would better benefit from interval debulking following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it