000300694 001__ 300694
000300694 005__ 20250611143146.0
000300694 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1038/s41416-025-03018-0
000300694 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:40287590
000300694 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0007-0920
000300694 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1532-1827
000300694 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:176505136
000300694 037__ $$aDKFZ-2025-00874
000300694 041__ $$aEnglish
000300694 082__ $$a610
000300694 1001_ $$aTrewin-Nybråten, Cassia B$$b0
000300694 245__ $$aOvarian cancer survival by residual disease following cytoreductive surgery: a nationwide study in Norway.
000300694 260__ $$aEdinburgh$$bNature Publ. Group$$c2025
000300694 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000300694 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000300694 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1749645060_18023
000300694 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000300694 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000300694 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000300694 500__ $$a#LA:C020# / 2025 Jun;132(12):1158-1166
000300694 520__ $$aResidual disease (RD) following cytoreductive surgery is prognostic for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients. Few studies have evaluated RD and survival by tumor histotype and across continuous RD diameter.2608 individuals with stages III-IV invasive EOC diagnosed between 2013 and 2022 were identified using the Cancer Registry of Norway. In flexible parametric models, we compared excess mortality comparing RD versus no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD); systemic anti-cancer therapy was evaluated in a sub-cohort from 2019. Excess mortality was assessed across continuous RD size using restricted cubic splines.Among 1849 patients with cytoreductive surgery, survival was worse for individuals with RD (vs. NMRD), excess hazard ratio (EHR) = 2.62 (95% confidence interval = (2.27-3.01)); no heterogeneity was observed by histotype (p = 0.21). Patients with 0.1-0.4 cm RD had 2-fold higher risk of death (EHR = 2.09 (1.63-2.68)) relative to women with NMRD; ~3-fold higher risk was observed for all other categories (e.g., 0.5-0.9 cm, EHR = 2.97 (2.26-3.89); 3.0-20 cm, 2.75 (2.05-3.70)). No significant difference in three-year survival was observed across continuous RD diameter (p ≥ 0.17). NMRD was associated with better survival regardless of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Achieving NMRD resulted in the best survival outcomes. Among patients with RD, we observed no significant difference in survival by RD diameter.
000300694 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313$$a313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)$$cPOF4-313$$fPOF IV$$x0
000300694 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
000300694 7001_ $$aLeithe, Sigrid$$b1
000300694 7001_ $$aPaulsen, Torbjørn$$b2
000300694 7001_ $$aLangseth, Hilde$$b3
000300694 7001_ $$00000-0002-1426-8505$$aFortner, Renée Turzanski$$b4$$eLast author
000300694 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2002452-6$$a10.1038/s41416-025-03018-0$$n12$$p1158-1166$$tBritish journal of cancer$$v132$$x0007-0920$$y2025
000300694 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:300694$$pVDB
000300694 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$60000-0002-1426-8505$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b4$$kDKFZ
000300694 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vKrebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention$$x0
000300694 9141_ $$y2025
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)3002$$2StatID$$aDEAL Springer$$d2024-12-19$$wger
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1190$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBiological Abstracts$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0113$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bBRIT J CANCER : 2022$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC$$d2024-12-19
000300694 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9905$$2StatID$$aIF >= 5$$bBRIT J CANCER : 2022$$d2024-12-19
000300694 9202_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C020-20160331$$kC020$$lEpidemiologie von Krebs$$x0
000300694 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C020-20160331$$kC020$$lEpidemiologie von Krebs$$x0
000300694 980__ $$ajournal
000300694 980__ $$aVDB
000300694 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C020-20160331
000300694 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED