2019
DOI: 10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e17052
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accuracy of primary laparoscopic staging in patients with early ovarian malignancies: A retrospective multicenter study.

Abstract: e17052 Background: Early ovarian malignancies (eOM) are often diagnosed incidentally in the course of diagnostic minimal invasive surgery or laparoscopy for preoperative suspected benign indications. To what extent initial minimal-invasive staging matches final FIGO stage following definite surgery is controversially discussed and current literature on this question is sparse. The aim of this study was to assess accuracy of laparoscopic staging of eOM with regard to final FIGO stage. Methods: We retrospective… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thirty-eight of these studies were excluded due to a lack of comparison of progression-free survival or overall survival between the intraoperative capsule rupture and no capsule rupture groups (19 studies), incorrect study type according to our inclusion criteria (13 studies), incorrect population (three studies), incorrect intervention (two studies), and duplicate populations (one study). 6,16–52 The data quality of the remaining articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (Appendix 2, available online at http://links.lww.com/AOG/C345). Seventeen studies met all the criteria for inclusion in our meta-analysis.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thirty-eight of these studies were excluded due to a lack of comparison of progression-free survival or overall survival between the intraoperative capsule rupture and no capsule rupture groups (19 studies), incorrect study type according to our inclusion criteria (13 studies), incorrect population (three studies), incorrect intervention (two studies), and duplicate populations (one study). 6,16–52 The data quality of the remaining articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (Appendix 2, available online at http://links.lww.com/AOG/C345). Seventeen studies met all the criteria for inclusion in our meta-analysis.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%