| Title |
Secondary cytoreduction in ovarian cancer: who really benefits?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00404-018-4915-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Teresa Giudice, Marco D’Indinosante, Serena Cappuccio, Valerio Gallotta, Anna Fagotti, Giovanni Scambia, Marco Petrillo |
| Abstract |
To identify women affected by recurrent ovarian cancer who benefit from secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCS), analyse their clinical and biological features and investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal-based chemotherapy (HIPEC) in this subset of patients. This narrative review examines the data available from the updated literature. An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed Medline databases for articles published from 1990 to 2018. Retrospective studies and preliminary data from the AGO-Desktop III trial show that cytoreductive surgery is associated with improved post-relapse survival in patients with platinum-sensitive relapse, compared to chemotherapy alone. This benefit is more evident in patients treated with complete or optimal primary debulking surgery at referral centres, who did not receive bevacizumab in first-line chemotherapy, and who present a localized pattern of disease. MIS has been proven to be a favourable approach to achieve a complete secondary debulking, reducing peri- and postoperative comorbidities. The application of HIPEC to SCS is associated with an improvement in oncological outcomes by preliminary results. While waiting for the final results of the ongoing randomized controlled trials, SCS seems feasible and safe in selected patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Recently, more attention has been focused on the biological features of ovarian tumours, such as BRCA status. Further studies and molecular research should be conducted to identify individualized and targeted therapies in the treatment of ovarian cancer recurrences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 47% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#21,164,509
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#1,537
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,653
of 342,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#24
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.