ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Minimally invasive versus open interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a BMI-stratified analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) across different body mass index (BMI) levels, who underwent either open surgery or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for interval debulking surgery (IDS) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).
methodsPatients diagnosed with stage III and IV AEOC between March 2014 and March 2024, who received IDS post-NACT, were enrolled and divided into open and minimally invasive (including laparoscopic and robot-assisted) surgery groups, and stratified by BMI for comparisons of surgical outcomes.
resultsA total of 256 patients were enrolled. Following 1:1 propensity score matching, progression-free (PFS, p = 0.379) and overall survival (OS, p = 0.772) did not differ between the open surgery and MIS groups. In patients with BMI ≥ 24 kg/m
conclusionThe study suggests that MIS is a feasible and safe alternative for carefully selected overweight and obese patients with AEOC, offering perioperative advantages without compromising long-term oncological outcomes. While MIS was associated with higher R0 rates in this subgroup, the benefits must be interpreted cautiously due to inherent selection biases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42191958What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.