↓ Skip to main content

Radical surgery versus standard surgery for primary cytoreduction of bulky stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer: an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Radical surgery versus standard surgery for primary cytoreduction of bulky stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer: an observational study
Published in
BMC Cancer, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1525-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yulan Ren, Rong Jiang, Sheng Yin, Chao You, Dongli Liu, Xi Cheng, Jie Tang, Rongyu Zang

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of radical surgery with additional extensive upper abdominal procedures (EUAS) for the treatment of stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer with bulky upper abdominal disease (UAD). An observational study was conducted between 2009 and 2012 involving two different surgical teams. Team A was composed of the "believers" in EUAS and Team B the "non-believers" in EUAS. Patients were divided into a radical surgery group (EUAS group) or a standard surgery group (non-EUAS group) according to whether or not they had received EUAS. All patients underwent primary cytoreductive surgery with the goal of optimal debulking (≤1 cm); this was reviewed in the pelvis, middle abdomen, and upper abdomen. The baseline for the two groups was optimal cytoreduction in both the pelvis and middle abdomen. Progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated. Radical surgery was performed in 70.7 % (82/116) and 12.7 % (30/237) of the patients by Teams A and B, respectively. The study groups had similar clinicopathologic characteristics. The median PFS and OS were significantly improved in the radical surgery group, compared with standard surgery groups (PFS: 19.5 vs. 13.3 months, HR: 0.61; 95 % CI: 0.46-0.80, P < 0.001; OS: not reached vs. 39.3 months, HR: 0.47; 95 % CI: 0.30-0.72, P < 0.001). Positive predictors of complete cytoreduction were treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, improved American Society of Anesthesiologists performance status, and the absence of bowel mesenteric carcinomatosis. Radical surgery lengthens the PFS and overall survival times of ovarian cancer patients with bulky UAD. However, a well-designed randomized trial is needed to confirm the present results.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 9 29%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 52%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,523,962
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,094
of 8,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,653
of 264,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#33
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,346 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 264,795 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.