Does aggressive primary debulking surgery influence survival in ovarian cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5561 Background: Evidence comparing outcomes in patients receiving primary debulking surgery (PDS) to those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for advanced stage ovarian carcinoma is conflicting. We conducted a retrospective survival analysis of all patients with stage IIIC and IV serous ovarian cancer treated at our institute by either PDS or NACT. Methods: Data was extracted from patient synoptic OR reports and medical records between January 2003 and December 2011. Survival comparisons between patients receiving NACT and PDS were made according to aggressiveness of surgery and residual disease following surgery. Aggressive surgery was defined by one of the following procedures; pelvic peritonectomy, any bowel resection, diaphragm resection, diaphragm peritonectomy and splenectomy. Results: Out of 342 patients, 143 (41%) had NACT and 199 (59%) had PDS. Patients undergoing PDS had a median survival (MS) of 58 months compared to 34 months for NACT. Patients undergoing PDS with > 10mm and <10mm residual disease, had a MS of 33 and 55 months, respectively; whereas those with microscopic disease have not yet reached their MS. In the NACT group, MS for < and > 10 mm residual disease was 30 months for both, compared with 39 months for those with microscopic disease. Within the PDS group, those undergoing limited surgery had a MS of 48 months whereas MS has not been reached for those undergoing aggressive surgery. Over 60% of patients undergoing PDS with microscopic residual were alive at 7 years. In the NACT group, there was no difference in survival according to extent of surgery. Conclusions: Patients withPDS, whether debulked to < 10mm or to microscopic disease have a significant and lengthy survival advantage over patients receiving NACT.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".