Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30911658›Full record

ArticlePleura and peritoneum2018

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in combination with standard of care chemotherapy in primarily untreated chemo naïve upper gi-adenocarcinomas with peritoneal seeding - a phase II/III trial of the AIO/CAOGI/ACO.

Thorsten Oliver Goetze, Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, Urs Pabst, Marc Reymond, Clemens Tempfer, Wolf O Bechstein, Ulli Bankstahl, Ines Gockel, Alfred Königsrainer, Thomas Kraus and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pleura and peritoneum, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Integration of Genomic Biology Into Therapeutic Strategies of Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Metastasis.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Thorsten Oliver GoetzeInstitute of Clinical Cancer Research (IKF), UCT- University Cancer Center Frankfurt, Krankenhaus Nordwest, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Salah-Eddin Al-BatranInstitute of Clinical Cancer Research (IKF), UCT- University Cancer Center Frankfurt, Krankenhaus Nordwest, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Urs PabstKlinik für Chirurgie Marien Hospital Herne, Universitätsklinikum der Ruhr-Universität BochumHerne, Herne, Germany.
Marc ReymondChirurgische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Clemens TempferKlinik für Frauenheilkunde Marien Hospital Herne, Universitätsklinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Herne, Germany.
Wolf O BechsteinDepartment of Surgery, Frankfurt University; Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany.
Ulli BankstahlInstitute of Clinical Cancer Research (IKF), UCT- University Cancer Center Frankfurt, Krankenhaus Nordwest, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Ines GockelKlinik für Visceralchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Alfred KönigsrainerChirurgische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Thomas KrausKlinik für Chirurgie, UCT- University Cancer Center Frankfurt, Krankenhaus Nordwest, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Stefan P MönigHôpitaux Universitaires, de Genève, Service de Chirurgie viscéral, Genève, Switzerland.
Beate RauCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Chirurgische Klinik, Berlin, Germany.
Matthias SchwarzbachDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum Frankfurt Höchst, Frankfurt, Germany.
Pompiliu PisoChirurgische Klinik, Krankenhaus Barmherzige Brüder Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Krankenhaus Nordwest · DEUniversitätsklinikum Tübingen · DEUniversity Hospital Frankfurt · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DEHôpital Beau-Séjour · CHKlinik für Frauenheilkunde · DEKlinikum Frankfurt Höchst · DEKrankenhaus Barmherzige Brüder · DEUniversitätsklinik Marien Hospital Herne · DEUniversity Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeritoneal metastasis is a common and dismal evolution of several gastrointestinal (GI) tumors, including gastric, colorectal, hepatobiliary, pancreatic, and other cancers. The therapy of peritoneal metastasis is largely palliative; with the aim of prolonging life and preserving its quality. In the meantime, a significant pharmacological advantage of intraperitoneal chemotherapy was documented in the preclinical model, and numerous clinical studies have delivered promising clinical results.

methodsThis is a prospective, open, randomized multicenter phase III clinical study with two arms that aims to evaluate the effects of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) combined with systemic chemotherapy vs. intravenous systemic chemotherapy alone on patients with metastatic upper GI tumors with a peritoneal seeding. Upper GI-adenocarcinomas originated from biliary tract, pancreas and stomach, or esophago- gastric junction are eligible. Patients in the study are treated with standard of care systemic palliative chemotherapy (mFOLFOX6) vs. PIPAC with intravenous (i.v.) chemotherapy (mFOLFOX6). Patients in first line with first diagnosed peritoneal seeding are eligible. Primary outcome is progression free survival (PFS).

conclusionsPIPAC-procedure is explicit a palliative method but it delivers cytotoxic therapy like in hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)-procedure directly to the tumor in a minimally invasive technique, without the need for consideration of the peritoneal-plasma barrier. The technique of PIPAC is minimally invasive and very gentle and the complete procedure takes only round about 45 min and, therefore, optimal in a clearly palliative situation where cure is not the goal. It is also ideal for using this approach in a first line situation, where deepest response should be achieved. The symbiosis of systemic therapy and potentially effective surgery has to be well-planned without deterioration of the patient due to aggressive way of surgery like in cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+HIPEC.

trial registrationEudraCT: 2018-001035-40.

Indexed as

intraperitoneal therapyperitoneal carcinomatosispressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Identifiers

PMID30911658
PMCPMC6404998
OpenAlexW2806183293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.