ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2019
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Versus Systemic Chemotherapy in Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer NCI Case Control Study
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing hematological toxicity and adverse effects of perioperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal vs intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastrointestinal cancer.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2025Article
- The 2022 PSOGI International Consensus on HIPEC Regimens for Peritoneal Malignancies: HIPEC Technologies.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- The 2022 PSOGI International Consensus on HIPEC Regimens for Peritoneal Malignancies: Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian cancer with peritoneal metastases, systematic review of the literature and focused personal experience.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for ovarian cancer recurrence: systematic review and meta-analysis.Gland surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the efficacy of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients in comparison with standard intravenous chemotherapy in terms of progression free survival and overall survival. Methods: Retrospective case control study matching 15 cases with 20 controls with at least 24 months of follow up. Results: The two groups were comparable and well matched in all aspects. Median follow up was 36 months in cases and 38 months in controls. The PFS2 revealed a median of 6 months (range 2-14) in cases and 5 months (range 2-18) in controls. The median OS was 36 and 38 months in cases and controls respectively. No statistically significant difference between the cases and controls were observed in progression free survival (PFS2) and overall survival OS (P-value, 0.350 and 0.711 respectively). However, the PFS2 was in favor of cases and OS was in favor of controls without reaching significance. The percentage of patients who survived 5 years or more was 20% in cases and 35% in controls. The only issue in favor of HIPEC is the significant reduction in chemotherapeutic toxicity when given by the intraperitoneal way (P- value 0.003). Conclusion: According to our study, CRS and HIPEC do not seem to have impact on OS and PFS in the setting of recurrent platinum sensitive ovarian cancer. However, we recommend on going researches with much more refined selection criteria and with larger sample size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.