↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
249 Mendeley
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 249 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 9%
Other 21 8%
Researcher 21 8%
Student > Bachelor 20 8%
Other 41 16%
Unknown 101 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 <1%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 113 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 November 2020.
All research outputs
#4,260,002
of 26,106,397 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,581
of 13,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,958
of 383,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#154
of 268 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,106,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 383,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 268 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.