Does a high peritoneal cancer index lead to a worse prognosis of patients with advanced ovarian cancer?: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the latest evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The newest clinical evidence that the relationship between the peritoneal cancer index (PCI) and the postoperative prognosis of advanced ovarian cancer patients remains controversial, and there are no large-sample and multicenter studies to clarify this matter. Therefore, in this paper, we used meta-analysis to systematically assess the postoperative prognostic value of PCI in subjects with advanced ovarian cancer to provide individualized treatment plans and thus improve the prognosis of patients. Methods: Literature on the correlation between PCI and the postoperative prognosis in subjects with advanced OC undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) was searched in the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science from the database inception to April 20, 2023. The search was updated on February 28, 2024. We only included late-stage (FIGO stage: III-IV) patients who did not undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Afterwards, literature screening and data extraction were conducted using Endnote20 software. The literature quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Lastly, statistical analysis was performed with STATA 15.0 software. Results: Five studies with 774 patients were included. The result indicated that patients with high PCI had a worse prognosis than those with low PCI. The combined hazard ratio was 2.79 [95%CI: (2.04, 3.82), p<0.001] for overall survival (OS) in patients with high PCI. Further subgroup analysis by the FIGO staging revealed that in stage III [HR: 2.61, 95%CI: (2.00, 3.40), p<0.001] and stage III-IV patients [HR: 2.69, 95%CI: (1.66, 4.36), p<0.001], a high PCI score was significantly associated with a worse prognosis. The PCI score had a greater impact on the OS of patients with higher stages. The combined hazard ratio was 1.89 [95%CI: (1.51, 2.36), p<0.001] for progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with high PCI. Conclusion: PCI may be used as a postoperative prognosis indicator in patients with advanced OC on primary debulking surgery. High PCI indicates a worse prognosis. However, further research is warranted to confirm these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023424010.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".