↓ Skip to main content

Adjuvant (post-surgery) chemotherapy for early stage epithelial ovarian cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
49 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adjuvant (post-surgery) chemotherapy for early stage epithelial ovarian cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004706.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theresa A Lawrie, Brett A Winter-Roach, Pauline Heus, Henry C Kitchener

Abstract

This is the second update of the review first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2009, Issue 1. Epithelial ovarian cancer is diagnosed in over 200,000 women worldwide each year. Ten to 20% of women are diagnosed early, when there is still a good possibility of cure. The treatment of early-stage (stage I and IIa) disease involves surgery to remove the disease, often followed by chemotherapy (adjuvant chemotherapy). The largest clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy show an overall survival (OS) advantage with platinum-based chemotherapy; however the precise role and type of this treatment in subgroups of women with differing prognoses needs to be defined. To undertake a systematic review of the evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer to determine whether chemotherapy following surgery offers a survival advantage over the policy of observation following surgery (with chemotherapy reserved for treatment of disease recurrence); and to determine if clinical subgroups of women with differing prognoses, based on histological subtype or completeness of surgical staging, have more or less to gain from adjuvant chemotherapy. We performed an electronic search using the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1948 to March week 5, 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to week 14, 2015). We developed the search strategy using free-text and medical subject headings (MeSH). We also searched registers of clinical trials and citation lists of included studies for potentially relevant studies. We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of women with early stage (I/IIa) epithelial ovarian cancer staged at laparotomy. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality of included RCTs. We resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We used random-effects methods for all meta-analyses, including subgroup analyses. The original version of this Cochrane review included five RCTs involving 1277 women. In this 2015 update, no new studies met the inclusion criteria but we included an additional paper with mature data (10-year follow-up) relating to a previously included study (ICON1).We included four studies in the meta-analyses and considered them to be at a low risk of bias. Most study participants (> 95%) had stage I ovarian cancer. Meta-analysis of five-year data from three studies indicated that women who received adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy had better overall survival (OS) than those who did not (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.93; 1008 women; 3 studies; I² statistic = 0%; high quality evidence). Likewise, meta-analysis of five-year data from four studies indicated that women who received adjuvant chemotherapy had better progression-free survival (PFS) than those who did not (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.84; 1170 women, 4 studies; I² statistic = 0%; high quality evidence). These findings were robust over time, with 10-year HR estimates of 0.72 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.92; 925 women, 2 studies) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.83; 925 women, 2 studies) for OS and PFS, respectively (high quality evidence). The risk of death at 10 years follow-up favoured the adjuvant chemotherapy arm (0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; 923 women, 2 studies; I² statistic = 0%), as did the findings for risk of progression at 10 years (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; 925 women, 2 studies; I² statistic = 0%). Low quality evidence suggested that women with high-risk disease may have the most to gain from adjuvant chemotherapy. However, subgroup analyses could neither confirm nor exclude survival benefits in lower risk disease or in optimally staged disease. We found insufficient data to compare adverse events and long term risks between chemotherapy and observation groups. High-quality evidence indicates that adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy is effective in prolonging survival in women with early stage (FIGO stage I/IIa) epithelial ovarian cancer. It remains uncertain whether women with low- and intermediate-risk early stage disease will benefit as much from adjuvant chemotherapy as women with high-risk disease. Decisions to use adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in these women should be mindful of this uncertainty, and the uncertainty regarding adverse events. Treatment of women with lower risk disease should be individualised to take into account individual factors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 19 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 06 February 2020.
All research outputs
#562,606
of 14,308,949 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,655
of 10,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,252
of 319,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,308,949 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 319,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.