1994
DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70090-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial ovarian carcinoma

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
332
3
17

Year Published

1996
1996
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 672 publications
(361 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
9
332
3
17
Order By: Relevance
“…The two treatment arms were well matched with respect to demographics and disease characteristics. Interestingly, like in other published series (Hoskins et al, 1994) less than 50% of included patients benefited of optimal debulking surgery.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 67%
“…The two treatment arms were well matched with respect to demographics and disease characteristics. Interestingly, like in other published series (Hoskins et al, 1994) less than 50% of included patients benefited of optimal debulking surgery.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 67%
“…Among those with larger residual disease, size does not affect prognosis appreciably. [6] This study forms the basis of the GOG recommendation of optimal debulking which as residual implants <1 cm. The same authors retrospectively reviewed 394 patients from a GOG study all of whom had residual disease <1 cm and concluded that apart from the size of residual disease, the other factors influencing survival are extent of disease, age, tumor grade and the number of residual lesions.…”
Section: Rational For Complete Cytoreductive Surgery (Crs) For Stage mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The extent of cytoreduction was defined as optimal if the largest diameter of any residual lesion from surgery was smaller than 1 cm or suboptimal if residual disease was larger than 1 cm. 33,34 The use of tissue block and chart review was approved by the Institutional Review Board at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.…”
Section: Patient Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%