MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment results for patients with low grade ovarian cancer

2025· article· W4416056360 on OpenAlexaff
Kristina V. Afanaseva, А. S. Shevchuk, А. А. Rumyantsev

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical alphabet · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsNational Defence Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebulkingClinical endpointConventional PCIOvarian cancerMedical recordStage (stratigraphy)Retrospective cohort studyOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective : to analyze treatment outcomes in patients with low-grade ovarian cancer (OC) of all stages and evaluate factors affecting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Materials and methods . A retrospective analysis of 57 patients with low-grade OC was performed at the N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology from 2018 to 2023. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoint was assessment of survival-affecting factors. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and survival analysis. Results . Early-stage disease was diagnosed in 17 patients (29.9 %), advanced stage in 40 patients (70.1 %). In advanced stages, regional lymph node involvement was observed in 27.5 % of cases. Primary debulking surgery was performed in 28 patients (70 %), interval debulking surgery in 12 patients (30 %). Regarding the completeness of cytoreduction, primary complete resection was achieved in 21 (75 %) of cases, and optimal resection in 6 (21.4 %), suboptimal – 1 (3,6 %) case. In the interval debulking surgery, complete resection was achieved in 5 (41.7 %) of cases, and optimal removal in 4 (33.3 %), while 2 patients (16.7 %) underwent suboptimal surgery and 1 patient (8.3 %) underwent exploratory laparotomy. The PCI score for primary complete surgery was 7.5 points, for optimal surgery – 11.5 points. For complete interval surgery, the PCI was 8 points, for optimal interval surgery – 13 points. In the early-stage ovarian cancer (OC) group, 3-year OS and DFS were 100 % with a median follow-up of 30.4 months (12–57 months). In the advanced stage low-grade OC, 3-year OS was 100 % in patients who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery, while in the interval cytoreduction group it was 66.7 % with a median follow-up of 35.5 months (3–72 months). Primary debulking surgery significantly improved overall survival rates. The overall recurrence rate was 40 % (n=16), with a recurrence rate of 25 % (n=7) in the primary debulking surgery group and 75 % (n=9) in the interval debulking surgery group. The mean time to recurrence was 11.6 (3–34) months, with a median follow-up of 35.5 (3–68) months. The progression-free survival (PFS) was 72.8 % in the primary debulking surgery group and 17.5 % in the interval debulking surgery group. Conclusion . Our data confirm that in patients with low-grade serous OC, complete debulking surgery correlates with improved PFS and OS. However, primary debulking surgery compared to interval debulking surgery, demonstrates significantly better oncological outcomes. Patients with low grade OC should receive surgical treatment in an oncology center with a high level of surgical care and the possibility of involving surgeons from other specialties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical alphabetSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207