Evidence mapPaperPMID 34969828Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2022

Ovarian cancer recurrence detection may not require in-person physical examination: an MSK team ovary study.

Jacqueline Feinberg, Karen Carthew, Emily Webster, Kaity Chang, Nita McNeil, Dennis S Chi, Kara Long Roche, Ginger Gardner, Oliver Zivanovic, Yukio Sonoda

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Patient Voices: What Can We Learn From the Covid-19 Pandemic About Follow-Up Care in Gynaecologic Oncology?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up in Ovarian Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jacqueline FeinbergGynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Karen CarthewGynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Emily WebsterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Kaity ChangGynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Nita McNeilQuality & Safety Division, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Dennis S ChiGynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Kara Long RocheGynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Ginger GardnerGynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Oliver ZivanovicGynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Yukio SonodaGynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA sonoday@mskcc.org.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USCornell University · USYale New Haven Hospital · US

Funding

The Patient-Reported Outcomes, Community-Engagement and Language (PRO-CEL) CoreP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · 1985 to 2025
$88.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGiven the inconvenience and financial burden of frequent ovarian cancer surveillance and the risks of in-person visits due to COVID-19, which have led to the acceleration of telehealth adaptation, we sought to assess the role of in-person physical examination for the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence among patients enrolled in a routine surveillance program.

methodsThis was a retrospective study of patients initially seen from January 2015 to December 2017 who experienced ovarian cancer recurrence during first clinical remission. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed to compare differences in detection methods and in patient and disease characteristics.

resultsAmong 147 patients who met our inclusion criteria, there were no recurrences detected by physical examination alone. Forty-six (31%) patients had recurrence first detected by tumor marker, 81 (55%) by radiographic scan, 17 (12%) by presentation of new symptoms, and 3 (2%) by biopsies taken during non-oncological surgery. One hundred and eleven patients (75%) had multiple positive findings at the time of recurrence. Of all 147 patients, 48 (33%) had symptoms, 21 (14%) had physical examination findings, 106 (72%) had increases in tumor markers, and 141 (96%) had changes on imaging.

conclusionsIn-person physical examination was not a primary means of detection for ovarian cancer recurrence for any patient. Substituting in-person visits for virtual visits that include patient-reported symptoms, alongside a regular surveillance protocol that includes tumor marker testing and imaging, may be a suitable approach for the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence while also reducing patient inconvenience and risks to health.

Indexed as

CA-125 AntigenFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOvarian NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesTelemedicineTomography, X-Ray ComputedCA-125 Antigenovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID34969828
PMCPMC8825707
OpenAlexW4200426557

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.