Clinical outcomes of postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for patients with early-stage high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC) treated at British Columbia cancer agency.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e17105 Background: Intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy has been shown to prolong overall survival in optimally debulked stage III ovarian cancer in randomized trials. In British Columbia, we extrapolated this benefit of IP chemotherapy to early stage HGSC patients for the last 10 years, as these patients are optimally debulked at surgery but still have a high rate of recurrence. We conducted a retrospective study of clinical outcomes associated with IP/IV chemotherapy compared to IV chemotherapy for optimally debulked stage I HGSC cases. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of women with stages IA-IC HGSC who had primary surgery between 2007-2015, and received either IV or IP/IV chemotherapy post-operatively. We compared progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes between these 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier method evaluated chemotherapy delivery route with progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), using the statistical program R. Results: We identified 99 patients; 80 (81%) received IV chemotherapy and 19 (19%) received IP/IV chemotherapy. Among IP/IV cohort, 2/19 (11%) discontinued IP therapy during treatment due to abdominal pain at IP port site or hypersensitivity reaction to IV paclitaxel. 5-year PFS was 88.4% (74.5-100%) and 69.7% (58.7-82.7%) among the IP/IV and IV cohorts, respectively (p = 0.549). There was a trend for higher 5-year OS for the IP/IV group; however, this did not reach statistical significance (100% vs. 71.4%; p = 0.182). Conclusions: In our study, IP/IV chemotherapy for stage I HGSC patients was associated with a trend for higher 5-year PFS and OS compared to IV chemotherapy. This observation warrants further prospective investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".