Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26842487›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2016

In Vivo Feasibility of Electrostatic Precipitation as an Adjunct to Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (ePIPAC).

Tinatin Kakchekeeva, Cedric Demtröder, Nirmitha I Herath, Dominic Griffiths, Jared Torkington, Wiebke Solaß, Marie Dutreix, Marc A Reymond

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Primary and metastatic peritoneal surface malignancies.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Tinatin KakchekeevaDepartment of Surgery, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Cedric DemtröderDepartment of Surgery, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr University Bochum, Herne, Germany.
Nirmitha I HerathDNA Therapeutics, Évry, France.
Dominic GriffithsAlesi Surgical Ltd., Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Jared TorkingtonWelsh Institute for Minimal Access Therapy (WIMAT), Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Wiebke SolaßInstitute of Pathology, Medical School Hanover, Hannover, Germany.
Marie DutreixInstitut Curie, Orsay, France.
Marc A ReymondDepartment of Surgery, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. marc.reymond@yahoo.de.
Institut Curie · FRMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEOtto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg · DERuhr University Bochum · DEUniversitätsklinik Marien Hospital Herne · DEWelsh Government · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntraperitoneal chemotherapy is limited by tissue penetration. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been shown to improve drug uptake by utilizing the physical properties of gas and pressure. This study investigated the effect of adding electrostatic precipitation to further enhance the pharmacologic properties of this technique.

methodsA comparative study was performed using an in vivo porcine model. There were 3 cases in each group, PIPAC and electrostatic precipitation pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC), plus 1 negative control comparing intraperitoneal distribution and tissue uptake of 2 tracer substances (toluidine blue and DT01). Tracer uptake was determined by measuring DT01 in tissue and peritoneal fluid at the end of each procedure.

resultsElectrostatic precipitation of the aerosol was technically feasible in all ePIPAC animals. The aerosol was cleared completely from the visual field within 15 s in the ePIPAC group versus 30 min in the PIPAC group. The peritoneal surface was homogeneously stained in both groups. After 30 min, 1.5 % remaining DT01 was measured in samples of ePIPAC-treated peritoneal fluid versus 15 % in PIPAC animals (p = 0.01). Tissue concentration was increased after ePIPAC versus PIPAC (p = 0.06).

conclusionsePIPAC is technically feasible and improves tissue uptake of 2 tracer substances compared to PIPAC by up to tenfold. Intraperitoneal distribution was homogeneous in both groups. ePIPAC has the potential to allow more efficient drug uptake, further dose reduction, a significant shortening of the time required for PIPAC application, and improved health and safety measures.

Indexed as

Chemical PrecipitationPeritoneal AbsorptionPressureAerosolsAnimalsAscitic FluidCholesterolColoring AgentsDNAFeasibility StudiesFemaleMalePeritoneumStatic ElectricitySwineTolonium ChlorideAerosolsCholesterolColoring AgentsDNADT01 compoundTolonium Chloride

Identifiers

PMID26842487
PMCPMC5149560
OpenAlexW2271625988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.