Ovarian Cancer: Post-Relapse Survival and Prognostic Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with relapsing ovarian cancer have a particularly poor prognosis, it is thus important for oncology consultants to anticipate the patient’s adverse prognosis and to select an optimum treatment plan. We report here our retrospective review of the treatment outcomes of the post-relapse survival (PRS) for ovarian cancer and the different prognostic factors for relapsing patients. Methods: Totally 242 patients with ovarian cancer were admitted to our institution. All underwent surgery, and all achieved complete remission of their primary disease. Of the 242 patients, 48 were subsequently diagnosed with a recurrence. We retrospectively reviewed their initial FIGO staging, the histology of their tumors, the treatment-free interval (TFI), the number of recurrent lesions, the treatment for the recurrence (whether treatment included surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy), and the number of chemotherapy regimens applied for treatment of the recurrence. Results: The median age of the 48 relapse patients was 59 years (range 34 - 83); the median follow-up period was 40 months (range 4 - 103). The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated that having a mucinous histology (P = 0.029), having a TFI of less than 6 months (P = 0.0002), having a solitary recurrent lesion (P = 0.011), and no chemotherapy (P = 0.007) were independent risk factors associated with PRS. The number of recurrent lesions, multimodal treatment for recurrence, the number of chemotherapy regimens used for treatment, and use of bevacizumab were not independent factors for PRS. Conclusions: In regards to recurrent ovarian cancer, after achieving complete surgical remission of the primary disease, having a mucinous adenocarcinoma histology and/or a TFI of less than 6 months worsened the prognosis for the patient. Having a solitary recurrent lesion was a better prognostic factor regardless of whether or not they received surgical treatment. Chemotherapy could improve PRS, if the performance status (PS) of the patient allows her to receive chemotherapy, and if she is desirous of the attempt to extend her life. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2018;7(2):31-36 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo488w
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".