Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29100461›Full record

ReviewOncotarget2017

Nanoparticle as a novel tool in hyperthermic intraperitoneal and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotheprapy to treat patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Maciej Nowacki, Margarita Peterson, Tomasz Kloskowski, Eleanor McCabe, Delia Cortes Guiral, Karol Polom, Katarzyna Pietkun, Barbara Zegarska, Marta Pokrywczynska, Tomasz Drewa and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Catheter based intraperitoneal chemotherapy using taxane for peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer: from bench to bedside-a narrative review.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

14 authors.

Maciej NowackiChair of Department of Surgical Oncology, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Oncology Centre of Franciszek Łukaszczyk Memorial Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Margarita PetersonDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Tomasz KloskowskiChair of Urology, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Ludwik Rydygier's Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Toruń, Poland.
Eleanor McCabeDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Delia Cortes GuiralDepartment of General Surgery (Peritoneal Surface Surgical Oncology), Fundación Jiménez Díaz Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Karol PolomGeneral Surgery and Surgical Oncology Department, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Katarzyna PietkunChair of Cosmetology and Aesthetic Dermatology, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun. Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Barbara ZegarskaChair of Cosmetology and Aesthetic Dermatology, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun. Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Marta PokrywczynskaChair of Urology, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Ludwik Rydygier's Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Toruń, Poland.
Tomasz DrewaChair of Urology, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Ludwik Rydygier's Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Toruń, Poland.
Franco RovielloChair of Cosmetology and Aesthetic Dermatology, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun. Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Edward A MedinaDepartment of Pathology, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Samy L HabibDepartment of Cell Systems and Anatomy, University of Texas Health Geriatric Research Education, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Wojciech ZegarskiChair of Department of Surgical Oncology, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Oncology Centre of Franciszek Łukaszczyk Memorial Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment of peritoneal surface malignances has changed considerably over the last thirty years. Unfortunately, the palliative is the only current treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Two primary intraperitoneal chemotherapeutic methods are used. The first is combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC), which has become the gold standard for many cases of PC. The second is Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotheprapy (PIPAC), which is promising direction to minimally invasive as safedrug delivery. These methods were improved through multicenter studies and clinical trials that yield important insights and solutions. Major method development has been made through nanomedicine, specifically nanoparticles. Here, we are presenting the latest advances of nanoparticles and their application to precision diagnostics and improved treatment strategies for PC. These advances will likely develop both HIPEC and PIPAC methods that used for

Indexed as

CRS + HIPECHIPECnanomedicineperitoneal carcinomatosisPIPAC

Identifiers

PMID29100461
PMCPMC5652850

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.