↓ Skip to main content

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the initial management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the initial management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005340.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth Jaaback, Nick Johnson, Theresa A Lawrie

Abstract

Ovarian cancer tends to be chemosensitive and confine itself to the surface of the peritoneal cavity for much of its natural history. These features have made it an obvious target for intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy. Chemotherapy for ovarian cancer is usually given as an intravenous (IV) infusion repeatedly over five to eight cycles. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is given by infusion of the chemotherapeutic agent directly into the peritoneal cavity. There are biological reasons why this might increase the anticancer effect and reduce some systemic adverse effects in comparison to IV therapy. To determine if adding a component of the chemotherapy regime into the peritoneal cavity affects overall survival, progression-free survival, quality of life (QOL) and toxicity in the primary treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer. We searched the Gynaecological Cancer Review Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2011, MEDLINE (1951 to May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2011). We updated these searches in February 2007, August 2010, May 2011 and September 2015. In addition, we handsearched and cascade searched the major gynaecological oncology journals up to May 2011. The analysis was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing women with a new diagnosis of primary epithelial ovarian cancer, of any FIGO stage, following primary cytoreductive surgery. Standard IV chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy that included a component of IP administration. We extracted data on overall survival, disease-free survival, adverse events and QOL and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using RevMan software. Nine randomised trials studied 2119 women receiving primary treatment for ovarian cancer. We considered six trials to be of high quality. Women were less likely to die if they received an IP component to chemotherapy (eight studies, 2026 women; HR = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72 to 0.90). Intraperitoneal component chemotherapy prolonged the disease-free interval (five studies, 1311 women; HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.86). There was greater serious toxicity with regard to gastrointestinal effects, pain, fever and infection but less ototoxicity with the IP than the IV route. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy increases overall survival and progression-free survival from advanced ovarian cancer. The results of this meta-analysis provide the most reliable estimates of the relative survival benefits of IP over IV therapy and should be used as part of the decision making process. However, the potential for catheter related complications and toxicity needs to be considered when deciding on the most appropriate treatment for each individual woman. The optimal dose, timing and mechanism of administration cannot be addressed from this meta-analysis. This needs to be addressed in the next phase of clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 109 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 21%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Linguistics 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 27 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,554,590
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,934
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,767
of 353,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#158
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 353,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.