% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{TrewinNybrten:300694,
      author       = {C. B. Trewin-Nybråten and S. Leithe and T. Paulsen and H.
                      Langseth and R. T. Fortner$^*$},
      title        = {{O}varian cancer survival by residual disease following
                      cytoreductive surgery: a nationwide study in {N}orway.},
      journal      = {British journal of cancer},
      volume       = {132},
      number       = {12},
      issn         = {0007-0920},
      address      = {Edinburgh},
      publisher    = {Nature Publ. Group},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2025-00874},
      pages        = {1158-1166},
      year         = {2025},
      note         = {#LA:C020# / 2025 Jun;132(12):1158-1166},
      abstract     = {Residual 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.},
      cin          = {C020},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C020-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:40287590},
      doi          = {10.1038/s41416-025-03018-0},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/300694},
}