MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Long-term survival outcomes of intravenous versus intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

2020· article· en· W3028871862 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Soyoun Kim, Manjula Maganti, Marcus Q. Bernardini, Stéphane Laframboise, Sarah E. Ferguson, Taymaa May

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerChemotherapyInternal medicineSerous fluidProportional hazards modelOncologySurgeryStage (stratigraphy)Survival analysisCancerCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6046 Background: The role of intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy in the management of advanced ovarian cancer has been questioned given emerging evidence showing lack of survival benefits. The objective of this study was to compare the long-term survival associated with IP chemotherapy at a tertiary cancer center. Methods: We reviewed the long-term survival records of 271 women with stage IIIC or IV high-grade serous ovarian cancer treated with primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) followed by IP or intravenous (IV) chemotherapy between 2001-2015 with a minimum follow-up of 4 years. 5-year progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and covariates were evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Results: Women who received IP chemotherapy after PCS (n = 91) were more likely to have undergone aggressive surgery (p < 0.001), longer surgery (p < 0.001), and had no residual disease (p < 0.001) compared to the IV arm (n = 180). Median follow-up was 51.6 months. Five-year PFS was 19% vs. 18% (p = 0.63) and OS was 73% vs. 44% (p = 0.00016) in the IP vs. IV arms, respectively. After controlling for covariates in a multivariable model, the use of IP was no longer a significant predictor of OS in the entire cohort (p = 0.12). In patients with 0mm residual disease, PFS was 28% vs. 26% (p = 0.67) and OS was 81% vs. 60% (p = 0.059) in IP (n = 61) vs. IV (n = 69), respectively. In patients with residual of 1-9mm, PFS was 30% vs. 48% (p = 0.076) and OS was 60% vs. 43% (p = 0.74) in IP (n = 29) vs. IV (n = 31), respectively. Conclusions: IP chemotherapy showed a trend towards improved survival over conventional IV chemotherapy, especially in patients with no residual disease. Given the retrospective nature and small numbers in this study, prospective non-randomized cohort studies are warranted to evaluate the role of IP chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→