Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28442933›Full record

ReviewCancer management and research2017

Drainage of malignant ascites: patient selection and perspectives.

Maciej Stukan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer management and research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02724683 (Management of Symptomatic Malignant Ascites With an Patient-controlled, Vascular Catheter - a Validation Study.), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.4field-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.

NCT02724683 unknown statusnot on this map

Management of Symptomatic Malignant Ascites With an Patient-controlled, Vascular Catheter - a Validation Study.

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorMaciej Stukan, MD, PhDRan2016 to 2023Enrolled170ConditionsMalignant AscitesArmsAscites drainage with vascular catheter., Interview., Quality of life., Quality of procedure., Nutritional status
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Palliative semi-permanent abdominal drain for the management of refractory malignant ascites: a retrospective study in a comprehensive cancer center.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Symptomatic malignant ascites drainage with a patient-controlled vascular catheter: interim analysis of safety and patient-reported outcomes.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. The complex role of IL-10 in malignant ascites: a review.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Mechanical Modulation of Ovarian Cancer Tumor Nodules Under Flow.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2022
    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

1 author.

Maciej StukanDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Gdynia Oncology Center, Szpitale Wojewodzkie w Gdyni Sp. z o.o., Gdynia, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malignant ascites (MA) is a sign of advanced cancer and poor prognosis. MA can result in impairment in quality of life (QOL) and significant symptoms. As a supportive treatment, ascites can be drained by paracentesis (PC), percutaneously implanted catheters (tunneled, untunneled, central venous catheters), or peritoneal ports, or peritoneovenous shunts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) of different drainage methods for the management of MA. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and 32 original articles met the inclusion criteria. Patients selected for permanent drain insertion demonstrated symptoms related to MA and had undergone repeated PC. The primary focus of the reviewed articles was procedural safety issues. The rate of technical success of drainage device installation was 100%. Most patients experienced improvements in symptom control after ascites drainage. When analyzed together, 19.7% (255/1297) of patients experienced any complication and 6.2% (81/1297) experienced serious adverse events during MA drainage. Complications were reported for every drainage method; however, the least occurred after PC or central venous catheter, while the most serious occurred after peritoneovenous shunts. Adverse events were as follows: catheter obstruction: 4.4%, infection: 4.1%, leakage: 3.5%, catheter dislodgment: 2.3%, hypotension: 0.6%, injuries during device insertion: 0.6%, renal impairment: 0.5%, electrolyte imbalance: 0.2%, other: 3.6%. PRO and QOL endpoints were available for 12 studies. When PRO were measured using an interview, a significant improvement in symptom control and QOL was reported in almost all patients. Once standardized questionnaires were used, improvements in symptomatic scores and role functioning were observed. Deterioration was observed in cognitive and emotional subscales. MA drainage is a safe and effective method to control symptoms associated with ascites, and should be perceived as a supportive care, that can be applied for those who need it at any time of their cancer trajectory. Patient selection should be performed using a thorough assessment of symptoms and QOL, and should not be delayed.

Indexed as

ascitescancercathetercomplicationsdrainageeffectivenessmalignantmanagementpalliationparacenetesisperitoneal portquality of lifeshuntsupportsymptoms

Identifiers

PMID28442933
PMCPMC5396842
OpenAlexW2605491946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.