Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30019100›Full record

ArticleInvestigational new drugs2019

Chemosensitivity of various peritoneal cancer cell lines to HIPEC and PIPAC: comparison of an experimental duplex drug to standard drug regimens in vitro.

Jürgen Weinreich, Florian Struller, Iaroslav Sautkin, Shalva Giuashvili, Marc Reymond, Alfred Königsrainer, Timm C Schott

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Investigational new drugs, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pleura and peritoneum · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jürgen WeinreichDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. juergen.weinreich@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Florian StrullerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Iaroslav SautkinOmsk State Medical University, Omsk, Russian Federation.
Shalva GiuashviliDepartment of General Surgery, Aladashvili Clinic, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Marc ReymondDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Alfred KönigsrainerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Timm C SchottDepartment of Orthodontics, Centre of Dentistry, Oral Medicine and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1201-9222
University of Tübingen · DEOmsk State Medical University · RUTbilisi State University · GE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We performed an in-vitro study testing the chemosensitivity of peritoneal cancer cell lines (SW620, HCT116, MKN45, 23,132/87, OAW42) to various cytostatic drug regimens. A duplex drug, characterized by reversible linking of the antimetabolites 2'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5-FdU) and 3'-C-ethynylcytidine (ECyd), was compared to oxaliplatin or to cisplatin plus doxorubicin. The experiments were designed to reflect the conditions of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. CASY® (Cell Analysis System) technology was used to compare the impact of incubation temperature/duration and drug concentration on the viability of the cancer cell lines versus normal human dermal fibroblasts. Two incubation scenarios were explored: (i) hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with 1 h of incubation at 42 °C, and (ii) pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with several successive incubations at 37 °C. Under HIPEC conditions, oxaliplatin induced a potent temperature-dependent growth inhibition of colon cancer cells not seen with the duplex drug. Under PIPAC conditions, the duplex drug achieved the same growth inhibition at a fraction of the dose level required with oxaliplatin. Gastric and ovarian cancer cells were more sensitive to cisplatin plus doxorubicin than to the duplex drug under PIPAC conditions. The duplex drug suggests itself, notably in cases of platinum resistance, as an alternative or addition to intraperitoneal chemotherapies when platinum-based PIPAC technology is used. Using it with HIPEC technology is not recommended. Higher doses of the duplex drug will enhance growth inhibition, albeit at the cost of a severely reduced difference in chemosensitivity between tumor and normal cells. Our findings provide orientation for PIPAC-based personalized intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Indexed as

Hyperthermia, InducedAdultAgedApoptosisCell ProliferationCisplatinColonic NeoplasmsCytidineCytostatic AgentsDeoxyuridineDoxorubicinFemaleHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMiddle AgedOvarian Neoplasms1-(3-C-ethynylribopentofuranosyl)cytosine5-formyl-2'-deoxyuridineCisplatinCytidineCytostatic AgentsDeoxyuridineDoxorubicinOxaliplatinChemosensitivityHIPECPeritoneal cancer cell linesPIPACPlatinum versus duplex drug

Identifiers

PMID30019100
OpenAlexW2883278860

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.