Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24338278›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2014

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy from Armstrong to HIPEC: challenges and promise.

Ramez N Eskander, James Cripe, Robert E Bristow

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ramez N EskanderDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orance, CA, 92868, USA, eskander@uci.edu.
James Cripe
Robert E Bristow
University of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinionThe treatment of advanced stage ovarian, primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer represents a therapeutic challenge as evidenced by the 70 %-80 % recurrence rate. Our understanding of the synergy between surgical cytoreduction and effective systemic chemotherapy continues to evolve, with research supporting maximal cytoreductive effort followed by intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Specifically, analysis of phase III clinical trials has shown a median survival of 110 months in those treated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy, when surgery results in no visible residual disease. Additionally, incorporation of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy at the time of surgical resection has gained attention as an alternate therapeutic option, in an attempt to obviate toxicities encountered with repetitive cycles of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Currently, surgical cytoreduction in the hands of an experienced gynecologic oncologist, followed by intraperitoneal chemotherapy is thought to portend the greatest survival benefit in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer spectrum cancers. Additional investigation regarding the oncologic outcomes and morbidity of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is warranted.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansHyperthermia, InducedInfusions, ParenteralNeoplasm StagingOvarian NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24338278
OpenAlexW2070657581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.